Please more housing wards soon. And no more FC/Private Hybrid.

[Antoine_Lenheim]

Sure, lock it to one bid per FC. Then, when your active FC loses to a solo FC, you can come back here and complain about all solo FCs being sub farms and RMT and that you never see your neighbors in the wards! Infinite complaining generator!

There's no real good justification for active FCs being equally weighted. You could certainly argue that they should lose some proportion of their bid money, but ultimately it's clear that SE's goal was to maximize the amount of people who have access to A House, one way or another.

Active FC which loses to a solo FC is the only way to make the lottery system FAIR. You're wrong if you think it should cater to the needs of the other party simply because it's bigger. If it does, it either needs to penalize them by having an established entry fee so if 56 man FC wants to bid with all their members, they need to pay that fee which will not be refunded even if they win the plot. Or they simply shouldn't allow multiple entrants from one FC.

You can't make everyone happy anyway so AT LEAST try and make the current system fair for every and each one of the entrants by giving them equal chances of getting the house.

[PredatoryCatgirl]

FAIR

[Antoine_Lenheim]

Okay, cool. I will be. Thanks for demonstrating that you have the debate skills of a wet paper towel.

I mean, my inner self-preservation instinct notified me that it's unwise to waste your energy and time to explain anything to someone who thinks that bidding with 56 people and virtually reducing the chances to zero for everyone else that wants to get the house is okay.

But sure, if you're so keen on debating, let's talk about it. Why don't we make it a requirement for FCs then that they need to have at least 50 members in order to bid on a house? Hmm, how would that sound? Inherently stupid, aye? Just as stupid as what you're trying to convey.

[PredatoryCatgirl]

Why don't we make it a requirement for FCs then that they need to have at least 50 members in order to bid on a house? Hmm, how would that sound? inherently stupid, aye? Just as stupid as what you're trying to convey.

That is not the same thing. "You have zero chance unless you have 50 members" is not the same as "you have less of a chance with one member than someone who has fifty". What you're suggesting now would completely remove any chance at all for a small or solo FC to bid, regardless of any other FC's interest in the house, rather than making their chance very small in the case of a large FC wanting the house.

Do you honestly think those are the same things, or are you deliberately making an exaggerated bad faith argument?

[Sindele]

Active FC which loses to a solo FC is the only way to make the lottery system FAIR. You're wrong if you think it should cater to the needs of the other party simply because it's bigger. If it does, it either needs to penalize them by having an established entry fee so if 56 man FC wants to bid with all their members, they need to pay that fee which will not be refunded even if they win the plot. Or they simply shouldn't allow multiple entrants from one FC.

You can't make everyone happy anyway so AT LEAST try and make the current system fair for every and each one of the entrants by giving them equal chances of getting the house.

What you are proposing is not necessarily 'fair' - it is 'equal'. But the thing about equal treatment is that its relation to fairness is highly contextual. Here, you're proposing that an FC with four people should have the same shot as one with a hundred. This is equal. 'Fair', though, asks for a slightly higher burden of proof here because we can look at the context: four people gaining access to a house versus a hundred people gaining access to a house. If you think it sounds 'fair' in that framing, I'm going to politely question if your definition of 'fair' is actually based on the concept of fairness or just the concept of whatever most benefits me at the current time.

[Stormpeaks]

That is not the same thing. "You have zero chance unless you have 50 members" is not the same as "you have less of a chance with one member than someone who has fifty". What you're suggesting now would completely remove any chance at all for a small or solo FC to bid, regardless of any other FC's interest in the house, rather than making their chance very small in the case of a large FC wanting the house.

Do you honestly think those are the same things, or are you deliberately making an exaggerated bad faith argument?

So, what chance would someone bidding with a 10 people FC for example, have agaisnt another bigger one with 56 bids, is that fair ? Do they not deserve to bid on the large fairly and have a decent chance to get it because they're a smaller FC ?

[Sindele]

So, what chance would someone bidding with a 10 people FC for example, have agaisnt another bigger one with 56 bids, is that fair ? Do they not deserve to bid on the large fairly and have a decent chance to get it because they're a smaller FC ?

A slightly better than 15% chance if they used all 10 bids. What about that seems unfair?

E: And we should remember the realistic context, too: we're in a world where FC smalls frequently go for single bids on all but the single most demanding server in the world (and even there sometimes). Nobody's throwing in a 56-bid saturation attack on every single small that exists.

[PredatoryCatgirl]

So, what chance would someone bidding with a 10 people FC for example, have agaisnt another bigger one with 56 bids, is that fair ? Do they not deserve to bid on the large fairly and have a decent chance to get it because they're a smaller FC ?

They do deserve fairness. And 56 people having a larger chance than 10 people is fair, because the larger chance should go to the larger group. This ensures that the largest chance of making more people satisfied with the outcome is achieved.

Or maybe we can both admit that "fair" is a subjective term and stop using it in an attempt to guilt people into thinking that your way of thinking is the only correct one.

[Stormpeaks]

A slightly better than 15% chance if they used all 10 bids. What about that seems unfair?

That they have quite literally no chance to get it because they are a smaller FC, which is why it should be 1 bid per FC, that is equal and fair. The amount of members shouldnt change anything about the bidding process.

[Sindele]

That they have quite literally no chance to get it because they are a smaller FC, which is why it should be 1 bid per FC, that is equal and fair. The amount of members shouldnt change anything about the bidding process.

If 15% meets your definition of "literally no chance", then I'd like to recommend a course to you.