Private Insurance companies

[.George]

As far as I can tell, Nervous already said he'd be open to people applying for all sorts of suppliers (custom jobs like serial removal) so I really don't see the issue of adding this as well, only question would be if it would be open source where everyone can make a firm or make it sort of ‚‚legal'' version of supplier.

[xanx]

Whilst I agree with this suggestion to a certain degree, it is difficult to enforce this from your side of the story considering the way the current script is developed, especially with the law side of things and the LSPD. We have a purpose-built insurance checker for a reason and when it doesn't match with our system, it confuses what officers must / can be done with the vehicles that are not insured to the standard we use.

 

I say that until it is properly implemented, with the support of the script in one way or another, it should not be roleplayed unless an admin states otherwise. I understand that you may have registered businesses for this specifically, however, it's overlapping with the system that is already in place and this is why I cannot fully support it in its state as it is right now. As an officer in the LSPD, I'll keep on pulling over these vehicles because of the fact that it says that it is uninsured when either the MDC or the ALPR system says so.

 

What's annoying to see is that despite you roleplaying having your vehicles insured with a private insurance company, you still bring tow trucks to these traffic stops, so you're either going to have to commit all the way, or not at all.

Edited November 20, 2019 by xanx

[Duke]

3 minutes ago, xanx said:

Whilst I agree with this suggestion to a certain degree, it is difficult to enforce this from your side of the story considering the way the current script is developed, especially with the law side of things and the LSPD. We have a purpose-built insurance checker for a reason and when it doesn't match with our system, it confuses what officers must / can be done with the vehicles that are not insured to the standard we use.

 

I say that until it is properly implemented, with the support of the script in one way or another, it should not be roleplayed unless an admin states otherwise. I understand that you may have registered businesses for this specifically, however, it's overlapping with the system that is already in place and this is why I cannot fully support it in its state as it is right now. As an officer in the LSPD, I'll keep on pulling over these vehicles because of the fact that it says that it is uninsured when either the MDC or the ALPR system says so.

This could be resolved by insurance companies providing an updated list of all customers and their insured vehicles in the mean time. 

 

@Brett To avoid it being an idle money farm, insurance companies could need to rent an office, pay fees for their license, general business fees, additional taxes, and on top of all that investigate claims and pay out realistic amounts of money for vehicular damage, especially if the vehicle is written off - as well as medical expenses/court fees for taking people to court who've been involved in an accident, as well as dealing with insurance fraud, the list of expenses is endless for an insurance company, so the profits they would make could be marginal. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Duke

[xanx]

Just now, Duke said:

This could be resolved by insurance companies providing an updated list of all customers and their insured vehicles in the mean time. 

 

@Brett To avoid it being an idle money farm, insurance companies could need to rent an office, pay fees for their license, general business fees, additional taxes, and on top of all that investigate claims and pay out realistic amounts of money for vehicular damage, especially if the vehicle is written off - as well as medical expenses/court fees for taking people to court who've been involved in an accident, as well as dealing with insurance fraud, the list of expenses is endless for an insurance company, so the profits they would make could be marginal. 

 

And this is why it's a problem, because I do not trust the people to keep it legit, or keep it up to date. There is too much of a risk here for human error without enough repercussions, i.e someone losing their job for neglecting their duties like there is IRL. This is why it's a script feature in the first place because it's 100% honest, 100% on time and never wrong.

[Duke]

2 minutes ago, xanx said:

 

And this is why it's a problem, because I do not trust the people to keep it legit, or keep it up to date. There is too much of a risk here for human error without enough repercussions, i.e someone losing their job for neglecting their duties like there is IRL. This is why it's a script feature in the first place because it's 100% honest, 100% on time and never wrong.

Well, who's to say there wouldn't be repercussions, if they didn't keep it updated it'd be fraudulent and they would lose their license.

 

I do agree, having it scripted properly would be better. 

Edited November 20, 2019 by Duke

[xanx]

1 minute ago, Duke said:

Well, who's to say there wouldn't be repercussions, if they didn't keep it updated it'd be fraudulent and they would lose their license.

I'm speaking about the script as it is right now, not about with the changes such as licenses, and or other systems to keep this in place.

[Duke]

Just now, xanx said:

I'm speaking about the script as it is right now, not about with the changes such as licenses, and or other systems to keep this in place.

Yeah, scripting it out would be much better. 

 

Especially for the ANPR (Or ALPR as the Americans call it) system.

[Busch]

38 minutes ago, xanx said:

Whilst I agree with this suggestion to a certain degree, it is difficult to enforce this from your side of the story considering the way the current script is developed, especially with the law side of things and the LSPD. We have a purpose-built insurance checker for a reason and when it doesn't match with our system, it confuses what officers must / can be done with the vehicles that are not insured to the standard we use.

 

I say that until it is properly implemented, with the support of the script in one way or another, it should not be roleplayed unless an admin states otherwise. I understand that you may have registered businesses for this specifically, however, it's overlapping with the system that is already in place and this is why I cannot fully support it in its state as it is right now. As an officer in the LSPD, I'll keep on pulling over these vehicles because of the fact that it says that it is uninsured when either the MDC or the ALPR system says so.

 

What's annoying to see is that despite you roleplaying having your vehicles insured with a private insurance company, you still bring tow trucks to these traffic stops, so you're either going to have to commit all the way, or not at all.

Thing is there was a confussion iC over the situation over both the issue with the vehicle being impounded. Which was mentioned by the officer according to the employee. And the company needs to have a tow truck since some trucks get stuck.. Or are left stranded.

[xanx]

13 hours ago, Chuck Lee said:

Thing is there was a confussion iC over the situation over both the issue with the vehicle being impounded. Which was mentioned by the officer according to the employee. And the company needs to have a tow truck since some trucks get stuck.. Or are left stranded.

 

I'm not prohibiting the use of tow trucks in your business, it makes sense from a business perspective as in the long run it saves you the hassle and costs it would take to hire someone else to pull these vans out of places where they are not supposed to be I understand that. With our scene which occurred yesterday, the only reason as to why it was going to be impounded was because of how it was parked and the fact that it was not insured therefore illegal to drive an inch further down the public roads.

 

What my issue here is that once you come pick up the van with a tow truck to pull it away back to your HQ or base of operations, it is then seen to be in use the very next day if not the same day once more. So you acknowledge that the vehicle is uninsured by bringing the tow truck because it is not legal from an insurance and law side of things, but then you allow for it to happen the next day and forget all about it and say that it is insured through a private company, so tell me, which is it? Is it insured or is it uninsured?

 

 As it stands, this is just a suggestion at this moment in time and it should not be roleplayed. You may have been given the go ahead to run a "private insurance company" from the government by having the business registered, however, it does not work with the script as it is right now and therefore there is the conflict.

 

The reason why insurance is scripted in, is because it does not have to be governed by admins through OOC means, it is 100% accurate and it's something that EVERYONE can easily follow as there are no gray areas, if people start running their own private insurance companies, where is the jurisdiction for it? There isn't. Not until script changes are made and everyone is on the same page.

 

An admin will tell you one thing OOC, a government worker will tell you another IC, a traffic officer will do another thing. With the insurance script, everyone can at least agree to it.

Edited November 21, 2019 by xanx

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

15 hours ago, xanx said:

 

And this is why it's a problem, because I do not trust the people to keep it legit, or keep it up to date. There is too much of a risk here for human error without enough repercussions, i.e someone losing their job for neglecting their duties like there is IRL. This is why it's a script feature in the first place because it's 100% honest, 100% on time and never wrong.

If the goal of implementing something like this is create more opportunities for roleplay, why would in-character errors and repercussions be a problem?

 

Script-run insurance does not create much engagement and would likely see very limited roleplay opportunities. You would have 100% accuracy because it would be 100% automated, but at the cost of virtually 0% engagement. With that system, you just type a few commands and then never engage with it again.

 

To contrast, law enforcement roleplay is regarded as enjoyable and continues to endure because it’s not automated — it’s script-supported, but not entirely scripted-based. It offers unique opportunities to engage. And when an officer makes a mistake, there is a host of roleplay opportunities arising from that mistake (needless to say, those opportunities are not always pursued; the point is that they are there)
 

Automation removes all of that engagement. It stifles rather than creates.

 

I would embrace error and consequences, because then there would be meaningful roleplay opportunities (for example, a disciplinary proceeding for delinquent insurance providers) and, from my understanding, that’s the goal here.

Edited November 21, 2019 by Midsummer Night's Dream