mj2002

I don't particularly have a problem with more RPQM reports being filed. If someone is able to collect a bunch of evidence that as a while makes a character seem very unrealistic, then it is fine for administrators to look into that. What does bother me a bit though is that this reactive approach, generally, sets a high standard for players that are quite invested in the community. If we take the stereotypical business owner with too many things that they're involved in as an example, then you'll see that administrators can set a pretty high standard for their roleplay. But on the other hand, I'll see players with a more "throwaway" approach to their characters doing clearly unrealistic things. In this comparison, just because it is easier to gather evidence on a well established character (they don't name change all the time and actually organically developer their character with roleplay), it also means they're being held to a higher standard than others. In theory the higher standard goes for everyone, but enforcement of these standards is very uneven because it is initiated by a report. Thus, they are are usually reactive in nature, not proactive. To be clear, I don't have a solution to this problem. I hope relevant administrators take this into account though.

Keep in mind that administrators do things other than take reports, in game or on the forums. Just because you don't see them in game doesn't mean they aren't doing anything related to being an administrator. Beyond that, it is possible that they just play in a different time zone, and/or on different days. On the topic itself, I think the focus on administrators themselves is misdirected here. They are offering their spare time to do administrative work, for which they are barely compensated (if at all). Instead, the attention should go towards management who is responsible for operating the server. If you want to operate a server where the community maintains a high roleplay standard, then you have to be able to provide enough administrative support. Perhaps those administrators just aren't properly compensated for their time and effort.

This is a good idea when discussed as a concept, but I believe practical implementations will be quite difficult. For every instance where you want a character to be able to distinguish themselves as being illegal, you're going to have to set up a system for everyone else in order to verify that they're legal. As pointed out above, things like renting, getting a driver's license, bank accounts, buying cars are all possible for illegal immigrants. This makes it easier for them, but you therefor cannot use any of these systems to distinguish between the two. This also brings up the question, what prevents you from roleplaying as an illegal immigrant right now? Is it really the government records that are holding you back, or is it just so you can make it easier to get away with crimes?

This leaves a giant grey area, doesn't it? Your solution requires two conditions; A. They know and can positively identify the person(s). B. They have an adequate reason for robbing the person. How are these going to be applied? What counts as positive identification? Having seen this person more than once? In a single day, or multiple days? Knowing their name? Being able to describe their clothing? How can someone who is put to the test demonstrate this if it comes to it? Can you give an example of where this is just sufficient and where is it just insufficient? What is an adequate reason and what isn't? Can you give a list of what is considered adequate and a list of things that are inadequate? Same as the questions above, can you give an example of where this is just sufficient and where is it just insufficient? Without these details being clear, its not really possible to properly evaluate your suggestion.

We have a choice to what extent we want all the details to be implemented, right? Its only complicated if you design it to be complicated.

The script business script would allow you to choose a vehicle from a general list of vehicles with overdue payments, and then the script itself would force this vehicle to spawn if it hasn't spawned already. If it has a tracker, you'd be able to use the anti-theft menu in order to find its location. If not, then you gotta find out where its located by using other information made available to you. Would you automatically get the keys? I'm not really sure that's needed. You can retrieve a vehicle without having its keys by lockpicking it, right? I'm not entirely sure what's super niche about this. Repossessions aren't some sort of wildly unknown or rare concept in every day life, right? To me this seems like a good way to promote roleplay and interesting interactions between players for situations that are now just OOCly resolved.

A business script perhaps?

It shouldn't have a 350-400 mile radius on a single tank because that doesn't take into account that cars in GTAW travel far less than real vehicles. Maybe a factor of 50-400 compared to real life. Your vehicle has a range of ~80 miles, which would translate to 4000 miles on a single tank compared to a real vehicle, if we're being generous. If we're being less generous, that's 32000 miles per tank. Not exactly realistic. I think 80-100 miles on a single tank is just fine.

I'm not in favor of the airport lease system in its current state, but I do think that adding the Western Ratbike to the current lineup wouldn't pose big problems.

Can you give an example?

So what's the best way to combat this then?

I'm supportive of this. Repo can provide interesting roleplay.

You can't do what you like IC, because not roleplaying fear correctly is against the rules. Just for argument sake, I could say that getting involved in a street gang is dangerous but not all shootouts results in CKs, right? The consequences are different though. There are very strict limits to when CKs are applied without the player's consent. - Administrators approve a CK application - Administrators approve a CK war (they're understandably rare) - Your character dies during a pre-approved CK attempt - You break the powergaming rule and your character die in the scene It seems as if suddenly or recently the last method is getting stretched further than it had been before. This seems to be the case now, so it would be extremely helpful to know precisely how your character is allowed to verbally and emotionally respond to being held at gunpoint.

But you're still contradicting yourself here, right? CKs are applied because the powergaming rule is broken in these cases. Either you can talk back, or you can't. Which is it?

This seems a bit contradictory, you can roleplay emotions whilst complying, but a character can't talk aggressively? My understanding was always that you can't abuse the situation to get the upper hand, like running away or magically whipping out a firearm, or OOCly delay the situation. Has this shifted to limiting how characters can talk too, regardless of actions?

So any other response is unrealistic then? I know posting videos of real life examples is popular around here, so I wouldn't be able to find any videos of people not complying during armed robberies, right? We both know the answer to that already though. Instead, my question was what the range of realistic roleplay is in response to being robbed. What can you roleplay and what can't you roleplay? Can you be a little more specific?

Can you describe the range of ways one can realistically roleplay fear? Sometimes it seems people think that immediately complying is the only way to roleplay realistically in response to a situation like this. What do you think?

Just to be clear, is this actually enforced to the extent that your suggestion would make a change to this? I haven't read all the reports, but to me it logical that the rule works like this. If the vehicle is part of the robbery, then you might be breaking the rules. But if you're parking your vehicle a few blocks away (not just down the street), meaning you have to run for like 30 seconds to a minute before even getting to it, then it shouldn't be against the rules. Is this an actual problem that you run into with administrators who say you cannot park your vehicle further away to the extent that you have to travel on foot to another part of the city to even perform a robbery? Are there links or other examples?

You're getting that second chance though, right? You'll just have to wait a little longer.

Proactive enforcement on this is still spotty at best. Have there been any changes on how administrators approach these issues?

More referring to the solution in the post I quoted. CKed corpses persist permanently. Isn't that a decent compromise?

I can't find the details beyond what the report says any more, unfortunately. Either this was one of those cases where the player went past multiple/many motel rooms and cleaned out each inventory, or this is overzealousness with the rules and warnings: "You may use /breakin to rob any property. Usage of /rent to access the inventory is forbidden and bannable." This happened pretty often and this was one of the reasons why the motel system was changed a few times. If its this, then in my view that constitutes "bad intentions" and is therefor deserved. If its the second one, which it could very well be and I'm happy to take their word for it, then its a bad decision by the administrator/me.

Stock markets can't be a thing because of the reasons below. Can you perhaps explain more about how you'd want to see crypto work, given the information below?

How do you get permanently banned when you had no bad intentions? Can you give like a scenario where this happens?