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.

[Divinemights]

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

I will say however the styling does much to pad out the character count which is a bit of an annoyance.

You are just taking a section of TOS out of context to and interpret it in a way to fit in your narration.
You are not the first one and certainly will not be the last but one fact remains: it never works.
Your argument right now is as ridiculous as those who attempted to report me for Obstructing Gameplay Using Combat over the PvP Frontline.

[CatStarwind]

I've never had one thread removed for violating the forum rules, let alone two.

It was more about abiding by rules as stated. Wasn't specifically referencing you, it was just a general jab at exploiting loopholes.

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):

Right, but you said:

However, notice that none of the 8 subsections include housing.

This implied that there was no explicit mention of housing. Likewise, your examples do not explicitly mention raiding nor furniture placement. Again this is your argument here, not mine.

You have had two threads which you have participated in removed by moderators.

One was removed, the other was locked with notice that the thread would be forwarded to relevant parties. If you really want to find credibility maybe start being honest at some point?

Because you certainly understand in what way I reference the TOS:

However, this particular incident falls under the Terms of Service Section 3 criteria of:

Like I mentioned earlier, this section also does not explicitly mention furniture placement in the same manner that Section 2.1 does not mention housing. And again, this is your mole hill not mine.

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.

And I have a delusional infatuation with the rules? Sheesh.

[CatStarwind]

Violating these License Limitations may result in the suspension or permanent banning of your account, or such other lesser measures described in Section 3 which Square Enix may take in its sole discretion, or an action for copyright infringement or other legal claims, all of which are reserved.

You really need to relax and take a breather here. This black and white distinction you just made up isn't even supported by the TOS itself.

I mean, are you seriously arguing that one player hoarding an entire ward is not a disruption to other player's experience?

You are just taking a section of TOS out of context to and interpret it in a way to fit in your narration.

Explain how I am taking a section of TOS out of context? As a reminder, taking advantage of a loophole in the programming to obtain multiple plots with a single service account, on a single world can be considered an exploit, which is relevant to Section 2.1.

[PaalHenrik]

Catstarwind: That raiding group was busted with video evidence of using TPP to gain their win. That's where they broke the cheating rule. Why do you insist on focusing on it "This implied that there was no explicit mention of housing. Likewise, your examples do not explicitly mention raiding nor furniture placement. Again this is your argument here, not mine." this? No raiding isn't mentioned in the ToS but they weren't in trouble for raiding.

[Nepentha]

This implied that there was no explicit mention of housing. Likewise, your examples do not explicitly mention raiding nor furniture placement. Again this is your argument here, not mine..

They did not get into trouble because they were raiding or participating in raid content. They were using 3rd party tools to assist them in raiding content. That's the violation listed in the ToS.

I'm not exactly sure why you think this is some sort of gotcha or somehow supports your argument, thin as it is. It really does look like you either don't understand the ToS or you're deliberately being disingenuous about it here.

[ChooChooTraaaaaaaaain]

And I have a delusional infatuation with the rules? Sheesh.

It appears your basic comprehension is much lower than I thought. I will try again with an explanation for a lower age level.


Please, take a seat.


SCENARIO A: UNNAMED_ World First Incident

WHO:
UNNAMED_ Raid World First Party

WHAT:
A video captures a member of the raid party using third party programs (zoom hack) to alleviate the difficulty of supporting their raid members.

WHAT IS THE VIOLATION:


WHY:
Because the user has made use of an unauthorized software/mod/cheat/hack with their intent and use caught on video.

ACTION TAKEN:
Members of the party depending on their involvement and testimony were punished by having progress removed, items removed, or character deleted.


SCENARIO B: Exterior furniture glitching incident

WHO:
Nameless house owner

WHAT:
Owner of this plot has placed exterior furniture that overlaps another nearby plot and restricts physical movement and access to the placard.

WHAT IS THE VIOLATION:


WHY:
Because the player has performed actions which disrupt, obstruct, or interfere with the game experience of another player. Screenshots have been provided to demonstrate.

ACTION TAKEN:
Since there is no way to prove the intent or the method used, GM can only issue a warning or reset the coordinates of the furniture items away. Repeated offenses or warnings may result in a suspension.


SCENARIO C: User reported for possessing multiple plots

WHO:
Nameless user in the housing district.

WHAT:
Another player has reported to a GM that this user is in possession of more plots than the technical limit of one FC and one personal house per character per world.

WHAT IS THE VIOLATION:
None.

WHY:
Because no known violation performed. Possession of multiple houses is not actionable nor disruptive to other players. Users can come into possession of multiple FC houses on other characters via automatic leader change after 35 days of inactivity. Purchasing more than one plot can be achieved without 3rd party tools. User may also purchase additional service accounts to purchase more plots. Multiple service accounts are allowed.

ACTION TAKEN:
None. Unless the player uses the housing system to disrupt another player like SCENARIO B or is caught with proven intent using third party tools such as SCENARIO A, no further action can be taken.


Any questions?

[WinglessSeraphim]

Any questions?

Will you marry me?

[Nepentha]

It was more about abiding by rules as stated. Wasn't specifically referencing you, it was just a general jab at exploiting loopholes.

Kinda like you necroing threads after your posts were either deleted or locked?