Jump to content

Portrayal Issues


radreaper100

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, radreaper100 said:

How is that considered acceptable for a serious roleplay server?


It isn't. Staff and Faction Reports should be public. Factions can kick you out for basically any reason and then say " Portrayal issues " and when you go to LFM/IFM about it they just give you some red tape 'no action taken' explanation in PMs after 3 months that will never see the light of day. If someone does bullshit, be they staff, faction or player, it should be public for the world to see. At least if LFM sides with obvious metagaming and OOC politics the whole server can be witness and form an opinion based on it.

Just these last 2 years alone we had some factions closed and some faction leaderships removed ( from both PD and SD and illegal factions ). How can a faction leader's judgement be considered holy and final when this server has precedents of faction leaders being either corrupt or incompetent and the staff having to come in and remove them?

Edited by pateuvasiliu
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
48 minutes ago, Acid Rain said:

Sometimes it only takes a name change to understand how the picture changes in its entirety. I've seen people being accused of poor portrayal and then having their roleplay commended simply because the other end couldn't figure out that a "certain" character belonged to a "certain" player.

This is how it usually is, I usually don't give a crap who someone is OOCly when I'm ICly interacting with them unless they're being suspicious.

 

I've uncovered several players who keep playing the same characters (different names) over and over again, because they always roleplay the same way and roleplay the same stuff.

Link to comment
Just now, pateuvasiliu said:


I trust several posts on LA forums more than I trust some dude on GTAW claiming to be from LA.

And if 300k isn't enough the people on 70k would be starving.

Never said I was from the shithole city of Los Angeles, but you don’t need to be to see that the living costs there are insanely high compared to 95 percent of the United States. You can obviously live in LA with less money, but you aren’t gonna be buying real estate there. Also keep in mind we’re talking about USD here, so of course 70k (900 million Romanian leu) would be more than enough to live in the city, but not buy a house. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
1 hour ago, pateuvasiliu said:

Anyhow, I have friends from Cali who say 200-300k $ is 'wealthy' for a single person, so case closed.

What? California is very big and diverse. 300K in LA, California where the cost of living is extremely high is nothing. Whereas if it was Sacramento, California then it would be a more acceptable salary to survive on. 
 

I understand this concept appears to be hard to understand, but a dollar in wherever you currently doesn’t get you the same value of items in the United States. In fact, a dollar in California doesn’t get you the same as a dollar in Texas, or even the same as cities that are both in California. The difference is especially noticeable with very high cost of living cities like LA or NYC. I’ve quoted a very good article which should help you understand the basic economic concept of Purchasing Power Parity better.

 

Quote

If it costs 2.3 euros in France and 2.00$ in the United States then the PPP for Coca-Cola between France and the USA is 2.3/2.00, or 1.15. This means that for every dollar spent on a litre of Coca-Cola in the USA, 1.15 euros would have to be spent in France to obtain the same quantity and quality - or, in other words, the same volume - of Coca-Cola.


 


 

71DA2176-D7D7-4FE4-AFC5-5E168D9E60DB.jpeg

Link to comment
50 minutes ago, pateuvasiliu said:


That's complete bullshit. If 300k was nothing, everyone around average ( 70,000 $ ) would be starving to death.  There is no place in this world where 300,000 $ a year doesn't get you a comfortable life.

 

It is my understanding that you struggle with economic concepts. Yes, you're getting paid $300K. Are you taking it all home? No. There's something called taxes, and in a liberal state like California, they happen to be very progressive. If these words are hard for you to understand, I'll try my best to do explain. In simple terms for you, you make more money = you pay significantly a higher portion of it in income tax. This was also explained to you by @bonk

 

https://www.forbes.com/advisor/income-tax-calculator/california/

 

Try it yourself, or I'll save you the trouble. A person with a $300,000 salary pays more than $100,000 thousand in taxes alone, while a person making $70,000 only pays approximately $16,000 in taxes. 

  

8 hours ago, bonk said:

Have U ever worked a job before bro ? There's a little thing called tax and tax brackets... Im Not sure if this is a thing in the third world because IDK how they collect tax there but in modern countreys we tax collected and they take many many monies...

 

Also, cops make nowhere near $300,000 a year. You're going to bring up the transparent California link again but it's not accurate. A lot of the "overpaid" sergeants are working an insane amount of overtime hours and/or other types of compensation. Check it yourself. The more accurate and average figure for a sergeant is way, way lower.

 

 

98cf3783e7e27d18ee92dd07420ebeb8.png

 

 

 

cdb7b0822b747bf655c885f6d4cda77b.png

 

39d07a7317457f5be6d633494a988568.png

 

 

 

 

 

  • Applaud 1
Link to comment
  • Wuhtah locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...