RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes

LiadansWhisper · **01-06-2016, 07:00 PM**

(01-06-2016, 06:01 PM)Yssen Wrote: That doesn't mean that other people did not ask/and or become aware of it and bring it to others attention before now. I just means people wanted/needed more proof. Which as I have said, is fine. It is more clear now than it was then. Spiffy keen. However, claiming that it was suddenly made against the ToS now is a slightly specious reasoning. It always was, recent events have simply drawn that fact into sharp relief. That is all I am saying.

I recall quite a few instances where one GM claimed it was against the TOS, and another GM claimed it was not. Sorry, but Kage is right.

Yssen · **01-06-2016, 07:14 PM**

(01-06-2016, 07:00 PM)LiadansWhisper Wrote:
(01-06-2016, 06:01 PM)Yssen Wrote: That doesn't mean that other people did not ask/and or become aware of it and bring it to others attention before now. I just means people wanted/needed more proof. Which as I have said, is fine. It is more clear now than it was then. Spiffy keen. However, claiming that it was suddenly made against the ToS now is a slightly specious reasoning. It always was, recent events have simply drawn that fact into sharp relief. That is all I am saying.

I recall quite a few instances where one GM claimed it was against the TOS, and another GM claimed it was not. Â Sorry, but Kage is right.

I am not saying it was not unclear. I am saying that it always was not allowed. There is a difference. For a very long time we let artists charge gil for their commissions on this site, until that was made clear as an RMT activity. This situation is similar. It being clear now does not mean they arbitrarily decided it was against the ToS recently. It just means they have been clearer about it now.

Shofie · **01-17-2016, 05:13 PM**

When in doubt, questions like this need to be brought to the official forums where you can hopefully get an answer from a developer. GMs do not always have the most up-to-date information.

GMs can and do often contradict one another, and should not always be hailed as a definitive source on things of this nature, especially since it's very easy to misunderstand what people are wanting to know.

Kage · **01-17-2016, 05:24 PM**

(12-28-2015, 09:59 AM)Kage Wrote: After the whole debacle with RareX trolling people...

Users on reddit have been reporting being warned for THE TROLL PFs and actual individual WTS housing/plots.

Thread on the official forums Â still on-going with no Head GM in sight but this looks pretty definitive.

But also note that GMs are inconsistent

Fairly sure that's what I've advocated for with additional updates in between etc.

S'imba · **01-17-2016, 07:23 PM**

Personally I think the violation comes from the section about the violation of hurting the enjoyment of other players. Deciding it to be a more catch all on things to leave up to a the GM's discretionot as to what constitutes a violation. Which in theory is a good idea so they don't have to come up with a strict list of infractions. As well as be able to something about an issue that suddenly comes up that SE forgot to ban. Though the problem with this is the fact that not every GM is going to have the same views as another. So things are not going to be consistent with each other. Which means that we're going to have a mucky grey area. They could probably figure out a way to implement a combination of the two systems. I sreally it somewhat similar to what the advances cardiac life support guidelines say irl. Using a medication in a certain type and location in a heart attack patient isn't written out as a no don't do that rather it says that it should be used with extreme caution I'd at all. Despite the fact that it leaves wiggle room to use it and it's use can be defended by the fact that it's not a definite don't do that. If it goes to court if the people in your field say they would not have given it in that situation then you'll be in violation. I kind of see this the same way, when the devs say we strongly advise against participating in X activity it means you're treading in dangerous waters if it can be proven that by in taking part in that activity hurt the enjoyment of others.Â

Basically before the trolling incident you could have gotten away with it due to a lower amount of people getting upset about it. Once that occurred they had a lot more proof to justify saying that house selling took away other people's enjoyment. So now they can crack down on it much harder than they did previously.Â

I'm sure there's a lot of other factors involved such as man power and having other reports to enforce to watch to see if the entire player base is adhering to every single rule. While not a problem on balmung other servers would be swamped with fighting gil sellers.Â

I may be entirely wrong about all this but it's just my personal thoughts on it. We probably could use a lot more listed violations but at the same time I feel that this offers a lot more freedom as players, just sucks people can't be responsible and take advantage of such a situation to be ass holes rather than just be mature and play nice. Which will end up with them making rules and enforcing them with an iron fist to make sure we are nice to each other.

« Next Oldest \| Next Newest »
Pages (7): « Previous 1 … 3 4 5 6 7 Jump to page:

Selling housing now illegal?

RPC has moved! These pages have been kept for historical purposes