Jump to content

Enhancing loan rules / guidelines


Mitch

Recommended Posts

At the minute, there is several loopholes that effect loaning and it's not that fair for the Lender, because it can be abused in so many different ways. 

 

What I propose

Allow admins to put the player into debt.

Why? 

People in America have debt problems, it's not a rare occurrence and a lot of  courts do impose sanctions on some individuals to pay back, or get assets revoked. 

Current loopholes

While it's counter productive, there is loopholes that I'll explain that players can use to abuse this system.

 

Example 1

Take out a loan and the player spends all the money, OR gives it away to a friend to hold.

Player goes inactive and is ultimately sued, courts rule in the Lenders favor. BUT the lender can't take back money, because no cash on the guy that look out the loan

Loan player wins because he doesn't have to pay a cent, Lender suffers because they can't be put in debt. 

Example 2

Timothy takes out a loan and buys his dream house he wanted, but the player goes inactive, and informs PM to hold onto his house.

Timothy never comes back and the Lender sues, Lender wins but cannot regain the property, because PM is holding it for the player** (Depends on PM / FM judgement) 

Example 3

Johan wants to become a racer and gets a vehicle loan, Johan doesn't make any payments on his loan

Johan gives his car to his friend while the lawsuit takes place. Lender sues Johan and wins, but cannot get any funds or vehicle back, because Johan doesn't have any. 

Johan returns a week later, reclaims his vehicle and ultimately wins, Lender loses. 

 

tl;dr please put people into debt for defaulting on court cases, this is a very common thing and debt is a VERY common thing in the States, we know the server can support debt, so please allow it. 

 

  • Upvote 3
  • Applaud 1
Link to comment

I’m sorry, but I can’t support this. 
 

I agree with you that it can be unfair on lenders, but implementing this runs the risk of making the process unfair for the borrowers. 
 

I have seen inactive borrowers who have been taken advantage of through, among other things,  penalty clauses — or agreements for secured loans whose security would constitute a penalty when enforced. Penalties are generally not sanctioned by the law of contract and are unenforceable.  The idea is the freedom of contract (and freedom to contract) should not be interfered with, so clauses in an agreement which penalize the borrower are unenforceable. An example here is when a lender collects late payment and interest on the loan (the late fee typically amounts to an unenforceable penalty). 

 

If this suggestion were implemented, we might see lenders who take advantage of an inexpert or unsophisticated borrower; and when that borrower goes inactive, at which time the lender undertakes to enforce in court, the borrower would incur debt (potentially serious debt) without any possibility of having their interest defended in court. We might see all sorts of penalties being imposed on inactive — and defenceless — borrowers. 


It’s already happened. It’s bad enough that unenforceable penalties cause them to lose all their money; setting them so far back as to put them into the negatives would add insult to injury.
 

I think it’s best — if lenders want to avoid risk — for lenders to find a way to screen prospective borrowers. The goal is to reduce the risk and for lenders to be a bit more prudent as to whom they lend their money. 

Link to comment
Just now, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

I think it’s best — if lenders want to avoid risk — for lenders to find a way to screen prospective borrowers. The goal is to reduce the risk and for lenders to be a bit more prudent as to whom they lend their money. 

I believe there should be administrator intervention if a lender OR borrower goes inactive. People don't (typically) disappear after doing a large monetary transaction. Screening someone would have absolutely no bearing on if they go inactive, leave the server, or otherwise take off. The loopholes need to be closed and the people running these loan companies (for the betterment of other characters, mind you) need to be protected, likewise with borrowers. 

Link to comment
Just now, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

It’s already happened. It’s bad enough that unenforceable penalties cause them to lose all their money; setting them so far back as to put them into the negatives would add insult to injury.

They have the rights to turn up to court and fight it, if they refuse, then it's on them, we give them enough chances to respond. And it's not unenforceable, it's an actual punishment you should face IC. It's the same argument with crimes and sentances. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

I've done loans in the past and quit for this exact reason, people going disappearing with your money and you being fucked over it.

 

For some reason 70% of all my borrowers went inactive without notifying me, causing me so much work to keep contacting them, discussing with IC lawyers et cetera  just because they randomly disappear. In my opinion there should be some regulations behind going inactive, don't take someone's money (talking about serious money here, not your typical 50k loan) and go inactive a few days later and never show yourself again. You can argue that when the courts come in but everything like that seems very unnecessary and a waste of time for the loaner and for the judge.

 

I've been fucked numerous of time because people can't be put into debt ? Take out a 300k loan buy yourself some shit and somehow spend the remaining money on other stuff that isn't able to transfer to the loaner, admin only gives you 2k because that's in his bank instead of the deserved money. IRL they'd remain in your debt till everything is paid of but how are you gonna do that on a server on the internet, you can't. Put them in debt simple as that, don't fuck around if you don't want to be fucked yourself.

 

9 hours ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

I think it’s best — if lenders want to avoid risk — for lenders to find a way to screen prospective borrowers. The goal is to reduce the risk and for lenders to be a bit more prudent as to whom they lend their money. 

How do you expect us to screen borrowers? This is not IRL. Do we request admin assistance every time before we issue a loan? Get them to spill their entire GTAW activity list to us to make sure he is the right person to loan to? Don't think so.

 

9 hours ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

It’s already happened. It’s bad enough that unenforceable penalties cause them to lose all their money; setting them so far back as to put them into the negatives would add insult to injury.

You mean, cause them to lose all their money the loaner gave him? If you're talking about late fee payment then that's their own fault. Matter of fact  I only ever enforced late fee's on 2 of my loans and both were shit as people didn't have any bank money and had collateral not under the contract.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 3/4/2020 at 7:46 PM, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

I’m sorry, but I can’t support this. 
 

I agree with you that it can be unfair on lenders, but implementing this runs the risk of making the process unfair for the borrowers. 
 

I have seen inactive borrowers who have been taken advantage of through, among other things,  penalty clauses — or agreements for secured loans whose security would constitute a penalty when enforced. Penalties are generally not sanctioned by the law of contract and are unenforceable.  The idea is the freedom of contract (and freedom to contract) should not be interfered with, so clauses in an agreement which penalize the borrower are unenforceable. An example here is when a lender collects late payment and interest on the loan (the late fee typically amounts to an unenforceable penalty). 

 

If this suggestion were implemented, we might see lenders who take advantage of an inexpert or unsophisticated borrower; and when that borrower goes inactive, at which time the lender undertakes to enforce in court, the borrower would incur debt (potentially serious debt) without any possibility of having their interest defended in court. We might see all sorts of penalties being imposed on inactive — and defenceless — borrowers. 


It’s already happened. It’s bad enough that unenforceable penalties cause them to lose all their money; setting them so far back as to put them into the negatives would add insult to injury.
 

I think it’s best — if lenders want to avoid risk — for lenders to find a way to screen prospective borrowers. The goal is to reduce the risk and for lenders to be a bit more prudent as to whom they lend their money. 

I'm sorry, but I can't agree with you on this one. You seem to have not read or understood the fact that a majority of these issues happen with people who take OOC advantage of going inactive. You are defending their IC rights when they are taking 100% advantage of an OOC issue. People know that they aren't going to go in debt and they can't lose what they don't have. Going inactive is their way of getting out of paying back the money, whether they play on that character again or not. Most honorable people who are going inactive, especially when buying a house, would tell PM that they are going inactive. You would think they would also give some notice and try to work something out OOC'ly with the lender but they usually "forget" that part.

 

In real life, if you default on a car loan or a house loan, you lose the car or the house. Your credit is penalized and/or ruined. There are real life consequences to not paying back your financial debts. That doesn't happen in the game all the time. There are no real consequences. See examples 2 and 3 in the OP's post. There is no punishment most of the time because if a report is made, Admins rule that it's an IC issue. Borrower wins again and there is nothing the lender can do. No consequences to the borrower, they get away with it.

 

This is an OOC issue as well as an IC issue. The screening that you suggested, there is no way to IC'ly check for an actual risk of a borrower. You can't check their credit, which would be a main precursor to loaning money out. You can't really verify their job income because no one gets consistent paychecks besides the $500-$800 checks (Unemployment/Mechanic/Etc.) and the initial 40 hours of paychecks. What would you suggest they screen for next? Trying to get an Admin to show you their GTAW record? I doubt it. Then the borrower will complain about them using OOC information to influence IC decisions, which would be metagaming. There must be some sort of regulation to this that results in real consequences for people who take OOC advantage of this situation, which is what normally happens. The current situation is 100% favorable to the borrower and not to the lender and that's not how it works in real life. There must be a compromise.

Edited by Giles
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
On 3/5/2020 at 12:10 AM, Mitch said:

Example 1

Take out a loan and the player spends all the money, OR gives it away to a friend to hold.

Player goes inactive and is ultimately sued, courts rule in the Lenders favor. BUT the lender can't take back money, because no cash on the guy that look out the loan

Loan player wins because he doesn't have to pay a cent, Lender suffers because they can't be put in debt. 

Example 2

Timothy takes out a loan and buys his dream house he wanted, but the player goes inactive, and informs PM to hold onto his house.

Timothy never comes back and the Lender sues, Lender wins but cannot regain the property, because PM is holding it for the player** (Depends on PM / FM judgement) 

Example 3

Johan wants to become a racer and gets a vehicle loan, Johan doesn't make any payments on his loan

Johan gives his car to his friend while the lawsuit takes place. Lender sues Johan and wins, but cannot get any funds or vehicle back, because Johan doesn't have any. 

Johan returns a week later, reclaims his vehicle and ultimately wins, Lender loses. 

 

The rules state " (a namechange / CK during an active loan will lead to your money being removed and given back to the loan contract owner)" so I'm pretty sure this also applies to people going inactive. I think staff has got your back in situations like these if you'd post a refund request. It is script-wise possible to go in debt according to /stats (there's a "debt" stat) so I always kind'a assumed this is used whenever someone takes a loan and they don't pay it back for OOC reasons

Edited by Raindance
Link to comment
Just now, Raindance said:

I'm pretty sure this also applies to people going inactive. I think staff has got your back in situations like these if you'd post a refund request

We've tried in the past and we was told to take it In Character, @Keane can this be verified? 

Link to comment

I know that businesses can go into debt, so I don’t see why players shouldn’t also go into debt for certain, necessary reasons such as a court order for failure to pay their financial obligations. 

Edited by Giles
Link to comment
  • mj2002 locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...