1 House 1 FC per DC Only

[ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain]

I mean, nothing in the TOS include high-level raiding either but _UNAMED were still dinged for it.

Please allow me to demonstrate how easy it is to reference to the Terms of Service for the example you have provided regarding UNNNAMED_ group activities in the recent World First incident (Naoki Yoshida's official statement on this incident):



As reinforced by the Producer of the game, this incident was achieved through the use of third party tools which are deemed as unauthorized per Section 2.1.

To say that there is nothing in the Terms of Service that covers and explains why members of the World First incident with group UNNAMED_ were met with action and punished accordingly demonstrates that:

• You do not have a clear understanding of the Terms of Service.
• You do not understand the nature of what qualifies as a violation of the Terms of Service.
• You do not understand the difference between an action which is clearly detailed as a violation of the Terms of Service Section 2 and an action which is grey area or not deemed out of the bounds, enforceable only at the sole disgression of Square Enix detailed in the Terms of Service Section 3.
• You have selectively identified and decided upon absolute required parameters of the housing system based on personal interpretation of documentation that resides outside of the Terms of Service. (Refer to previous posts quoting from Additional Plots and Housing Guide)
• You have selectively identified statements related to the housing system as being equal to the level of items listed in the Terms of Service despite the language being clearly different in nature and intent.
  

The result of your actions so far:

• You have had two threads which you have participated in removed by moderators.
• You have not received outgoing support from any of the involved parties in any of these discussions in this part of the forum.
• Your ideas, statements, and opinions have been unanimously rejected both on and outside of this platform.

[ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain]

It neither includes placing exterior housing items in a malicious way but that's still actionable as well. I am honestly at a loss here as to your infatuation with the TOS both being irrelevant and crucial to the discussion. It's not that complicated, the TOS just shows that abusing exploits such as loopholes is not allowed. If you really were genuine in the discussion you would be arguing on whether or not the loophole constitutes as an exploit, as others have in the past.

You have repeatedly noted "Malicious Glitching" within the housing system.

For this particular thread, you have reference placement of exterior furniture (related to this incident). What you are failing to understand is the nature of the violation in this incident. Glitching furniture can be achieved in-game without the assistance of third party tools to a certain degree. However, this particular incident falls under the Terms of Service Section 3 criteria of:



These objects have been placed in a manner meant to disrupt another player's experience. However, a GM must be able to prove that intent before taking harsher action.

There is a major difference between Section 2 and Section 3 of the Terms of Service.

Section 2 items are notably the felonies of FFXIV.
Very specific criteria that has no room for negotiation. It will be enforced without question when Square Enix can make a clear identification of the infraction and the consequence is usually termination.

Section 3 essentially cover most misdemeanors.
Lower level violations or grey areas within the rules that require further investigation or judgement with a very broad range of enforcement ranging from Account Termination to no action at all.

Let me illustrate it in an easier real world example to help someone challenged like you through it:

Example 1: You approach a stop sign. You stop, but not 100%. You roll through it at 1 mile an hour and continue on with no accident. This is a low level traffic violation which can receive a violation or a straight up fine depending on observation and results.

Example 2: You are driving under the influence and collide with a vehicle which results in the fatal death of the person you hit. This is vehicular manslaughter or a variation of it depending on state and has a very severe consequences.

You are attempting to upgrade Example 1 into the severity of Example 2 and you refuse to settle for anything less.

It is very clear who has a delusional infatuation with the rules around here.