Forbid OOC requirements in property sales

[Mahitto]

Just now, Pogis said:

I could still select not to sell my property to someone I don’t like even without an application….. whats your point?

 

My point is in the original post & 4 other previous replies.

 

If property sales were fully in-character, you could defintely choose to not sell your property to, say, the first bidder, who happens to be something you don't like OOCly, and that would be metagaming by definition, as your character wouldn't have any reason to refuse $600,000 from a buyer, for example. With the current system, though, you can simply say you OOCly did not want to do the sale and it's supposedly perfectly fine. Which, well, is not.

[Pogis]

1 minute ago, Mahitto said:

 

My point is in the original post & 4 other previous replies.

 

If property sales were fully in-character, you could defintely choose to not sell your property to, say, the first bidder, who happens to be something you don't like OOCly, and that would be metagaming by definition, as your character wouldn't have any reason to refuse $600,000 from a buyer, for example. With the current system, though, you can simply say you OOCly did not want to do the sale and it's supposedly perfectly fine. Which, well, is not.

what if my character knows them ICly and doesn’t like their character ICly?

[Mahitto]

Just now, Pogis said:

what if my character knows them ICly and doesn’t like their character ICly?

 

Then the problem would be IC and it would be fine? What's not fine nor realistic is selecting prospective buyers on a purely out-of-character basis, through super subjective and not at all transparent ways, leaving a ton of room for abuse besides grossly breaking multiple server rules, especially metagaming.

 

It's a pretty easy, basic, fundamental issue. Not that hard to understand. I was trying to explain the problem, but from what I can tell, you're just looking for a fight, so I'll stop responding.

[Cypher99]

While we’re at it, we should make all mappers become IC companies because frankly mapping OOC is not realistic either. The point is people are allowed a bit of leeway in regards to housing because it’s necessary. You have 10 people who offer buyout, so some OOC screening is necessary. There’s virtually zero difference between buyers IC that are all offering the max buyout in cash. Telling someone who they can and can’t sell their house to is just taking it a bit too far. If they want to screen their applicants, let them. If you think someone is breaking the rules, you’ve already outlined what to do. File an RPQM report. 
 

 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Cypher99

[Mahitto]

13 minutes ago, Cypher99 said:

While we’re at it, we should make all mappers become IC companies because frankly mapping OOC is not realistic either. The point is people are allowed a bit of leeway in regards to housing because it’s necessary. You have 10 people who offer buyout, so some OOC screening is necessary. There’s virtually zero difference between buyers IC that are all offering the max buyout in cash. Telling someone who they can and can’t sell their house to is just taking it a bit too far. If they want to screen their applicants, let them. If you think someone is breaking the rules, you’ve already outlined what to do. File an RPQM report. 

 

The problem is that you can't know who is breaking the rules and even if you do, it's impossible to prove. It's impossible to prove someone is only selling properties to their friends, that they're purposely not selling properties to someone they have an OOC grudge with, or are selling them on various websites or for OOC cash. Trust me, there are lots of people who would pay some good IRL money for houses in South LS, Paleto, Sandy or the sorts. Even if you report them, you can't prove it. They're protected and allowed to do it.

 

If you have 10 people offering buyout, take them from first to last, as you would in real life. That's the purpose of the auction. We need some regulations.

[Cypher99]

8 minutes ago, Mahitto said:

 

The problem is that you can't know who is breaking the rules and even if you do, it's impossible to prove. It's impossible to prove someone is only selling properties to their friends, that they're purposely not selling properties to someone they have an OOC grudge with, or are selling them on various websites or for OOC cash. Trust me, there are lots of people who would pay some good IRL money for houses in South LS, Paleto, Sandy or the sorts. Even if you report them, you can't prove it. They're protected and allowed to do it.

 

If you have 10 people offering buyout, take them from first to last, as you would in real life. That's the purpose of the auction. We need some regulations.

Common house sales aren’t auctioned off. There’s almost certainly other factors that go into it. If you’ve got 10 people all offering the same price, more often than not it comes down to who gives you the best chance of getting the house sold. Factors like if they pay cash, if they care about repairs, who pays closing costs, etc. We don’t have that here. The way houses are auctioned off is also unrealistic unless it’s a short sale or a foreclosure owned by the county or city. There HAS to be some OOC screening. Keeping it 100% IC makes no sense if we’re going for realism because we simply don’t have those factors I mentioned to distinguish one buyer from the next. 
 

I agree we need more oversight to address the issues you’ve mentioned, don’t get me wrong. Telling people who they can and can’t sell their house to shouldn’t be part of it. 

Edited February 25, 2022 by Cypher99

[Mahitto]

1 hour ago, Cypher99 said:

Common house sales aren’t auctioned off. There’s almost certainly other factors that go into it. If you’ve got 10 people all offering the same price, more often than not it comes down to who gives you the best chance of getting the house sold. Factors like if they pay cash, if they care about repairs, who pays closing costs, etc. We don’t have that here. The way houses are auctioned off is also unrealistic unless it’s a short sale or a foreclosure owned by the county or city. There HAS to be some OOC screening. Keeping it 100% IC makes no sense if we’re going for realism because we simply don’t have those factors I mentioned to distinguish one buyer from the next. 
 

I agree we need more oversight to address the issues you’ve mentioned, don’t get me wrong. Telling people who they can and can’t sell their house to shouldn’t be part of it. 

 

Yeah, but those are (would be) in-character factors, and that's perfectly fine. It's normal we don't have as many (or, well, almost none) of the factors that are relevant in real life, but that doesn't have much to do with subjective OOC factors deciding the outcomes of IC sales. That's metagaming. We do need some screening, but that's quite literally one of the main jobs of PM and RPQM. The screening should not be done by random players who a) don't have any authority, b) don't have the experience, c) are heavily biased and prone to abusing the system.

 

Should we allow people sell guns OOCly, based on what role-play the buyers will use them for, to prevent deathmatching and abuse? It's literally the same thing.

[Now You See Me]

I don't see a problem with this tbh because I know that if I have a character that matches an area I have a lot better of a chance to get a house there than if it was let to just buyout since I don't want to become a trucker or a mapper to grind all the money.

[Mahitto]

1 hour ago, Cypher99 said:

While we’re at it, we should make all mappers become IC companies because frankly mapping OOC is not realistic either. The point is people are allowed a bit of leeway in regards to housing because it’s necessary. You have 10 people who offer buyout, so some OOC screening is necessary. There’s virtually zero difference between buyers IC that are all offering the max buyout in cash. Telling someone who they can and can’t sell their house to is just taking it a bit too far. If they want to screen their applicants, let them. If you think someone is breaking the rules, you’ve already outlined what to do. File an RPQM report. 

 

I guess that could work, but it'd be hard to enforce. It's already hard enough to find a mapper OOCly, imagine if the few mappers who are active would be forced to use one of their characters and develop a full, realistic business business to role-play around. I know I wouldn't. You'd have your wait times go from 4-6 months to 8-12 months or more for one simple mapping, considering you'd have 4 companies get contacted by quite literally everyone - players, factions, businesses and such. 

[Timzii]

2 hours ago, Mahitto said:

 

And if that's the case, we have RPQM and PM for a reason. Report them.

good joke