Rule Suggestion (5.1 Mugging)

[Inchs]

Suggestion Topic: 5.1 Mugging
Suggestion Description: Currently, if you mug someone and they break 3.4 and pull a gun you can make a warning but not receive the items.
This seems a bit unfair, someone can carry an absurd amount such as 5 million and not risk losing that money because if they get themselves into a mugging situation, they can intentionally break rules to not hand it over.

Why should this be added?:
- Unfair to people mugging when someone breaks rules and they lose out on any potential gain

What negatives could this have?:
- More muggings

 

[rxsm]

idk who downvoted but the fact you can't receive their items when they break 3.4 is bullshit

 

[Inchs]

idk who downvoted but the fact you can't receive their items when they break 3.4 is bullshit

Yeah seems like a stupid way to get out of just not dropping your items and taking the warning

 

[Eric Jonson]

Great idea. I'm sure people intentionally do this to avoid loss but im sure it would stop if they know they are losing their items no matter what. I tried to mug a man and got shot and lost my gun over it while all he got was a warning and I had to waste staff's time to have them investigate and make a RR which I don't like doing.

 

[Tomten]

I rarely ever comment on here, but this definitely needs to be added and I fully support this suggestion.

However one negative point that you didn't mention is how would a staff member know/prove the person breaking 3.4 what items they had on them at time of the mugging? As f6's could take a while before any response.

 

[Bnjemann]

This should be more case by case rather than straight up.

Players mugging someone who is new and doing something to get their first cash boosts shouldn’t have to forfeit items to a player who’s too shit to hit a lick on anyone in an org colour with plenty of assets to their name who saw their new player tag above their head and took that opportunity.

If this is implemented it should be a double standard, players who get themselves killed whilst someone is attempting to force withdrawing something they stole should return the items to the person who tried force withdrawing them too, alongside players who disconnect in prison after mugging someone and not having their items returned.

 

[Inchs]

I rarely ever comment on here, but this definitely needs to be added and I fully support this suggestion.

However one negative point that you didn't mention is how would a staff member know/prove the person breaking 3.4 what items they had on them at time of the mugging? As f6's could take a while before any response.

Staff can check inventory and what has been stored when

 

[Inchs]

This should be more case by case rather than straight up.

Players mugging someone who is new and doing something to get their first cash boosts shouldn’t have to forfeit items to a player who’s too shit to hit a lick on anyone in an org colour with plenty of assets to their name who saw their new player tag above their head and took that opportunity.

If this is implemented it should be a double standard, players who get themselves killed whilst someone is attempting to force withdrawing something they stole should return the items to the person who tried force withdrawing them too, alongside players who disconnect in prison after mugging someone and not having their items returned.

I still think new players should be subject to the same rules as everyone else, it's not hard to have a gun out while selling.
Anyone intentionally targeting new players repeatedly breaks 2.5 anyway correct? So adding it in this forum would be irrelevant

 

[Limme]

Anyone would rather take a warning than lose a sell. +1 we NEED this.

 

[Clarky]

I’m getting PTSD to the Tamaninja and Code Monkey situation

Yes this should be a thing, people are so likely to ignore demands and will take a warning or even a week ban like it’s nothing because they managed to keep their expenses

 

[Sorle]

Think it should be up to the discretion of the staff member to decide whether or not in that situation the mugger could reliably obtain the items and get away with it; the burden of proof (whether or not a smooth escape could actually be made) should be placed on the mugger if they would like to obtain the items, and if there were to be any doubt whatsoever then the mugger should not receive the items.

One problematic element of this is that it doesn't allow for any roleplay to take place in which police could be contacted or items could be taken back, so as such in these instances there needs to be a clause allowing roleplay to continue as if the mugging went through as it should've.

 

[Jack Bruhross]

I’m getting PTSD to the Tamaninja and Code Monkey situation

Yes this should be a thing, people are so likely to ignore demands and will take a warning or even a week ban like it’s nothing because they managed to keep their expenses

Difference is that situation @Tamaninja didnt break any rules, he had his gun out and it was pointing at the floor. Cody monkey still got away with it tho

 

[Inchs]

Think it should be up to the discretion of the staff member to decide whether or not in that situation the mugger could reliably obtain the items and get away with it; the burden of proof (whether or not a smooth escape could actually be made) should be placed on the mugger if they would like to obtain the items.

One problematic element of this is that it doesn't allow for any roleplay to take place in which police could be contacted or items could be taken back, so as such in these instances there needs to be a clause allowing roleplay to continue as if the mugging went through as it should've.

Such as any other rule it should be down to staff discretion, I've got a clip I can show you where I most definitely would have gotten away with the mugging but the rule didn't allow for resetting the situation if someone broke the rules

 

[Bnjemann]

Anyone intentionally targeting new players repeatedly breaks 2.5 anyway correct? So adding it in this forum would be irrelevant

The key words here are “Intentionally” and “repeatedly” and by the time we clock onto players targetting new players the damage they’ve done is massive.

 

[Inchs]

The key words here are “Intentionally” and “repeatedly” and by the time we clock onto players targetting new players the damage they’ve done is massive.

I'd rather be it be a middle ground, with door protection, protection on selling etc a new player could easily grow a stupid amount of money and sell it with no risk and get a huge foot on the criminal ladder with minimal to no risk

 

[Tamaninja]

Difference is that situation @Tamaninja didnt break any rules, he had his gun out and it was pointing at the floor. Cody monkey still got away with it tho

 

[Kerpele]

we need this

 

[Pugga]

Should've always been this way, too many people being doing it for years n rather take a warning/short ban so they can keep their shit. Would most prob decrease the amount of 3.4 as right now it seems to happen way too often