Don't shit where you eat

[caballero]

As it stands, it's left in the air as in what distance a criminal can travel for doing crime, specifically mugging:

 

"you've travelled miles away from your characters' residential anchor to mug someone;" 

 

What is considered miles in this game where you can go from Del Perro to El Burro in 2 miles? Why is such a rule in place to begin with? 

 

Due to this rule, most criminals decide to play it safe and only mug throughout their residential area, which leads to bad relationships with the locals or a rise in tensions with other factions, which shouldn't be a thing. Think about it, who in their right mind would rob in a poor neighborhood if it wasn't for this rule? Most criminals in real life, even gang bangers, would only rob their locals if it was the last resource they had. 

 

I do not remember where it was posted, but several videos of criminals from known gang areas such as Compton were finding themselves traveling a great way to do their crimes, as one should expect. 

 

Just reformat the rule to actually mention the distance (i.e can't travel to sandy shores to rob if your character is based in the city) or get rid of it completly. Leaving it in the air makes people question it, eventually ending up robbing their locals and raising tensions, making community rp more difficult than it already is. 

Edited May 2, 2023 by caballero

[Anubis]

This rule was made to counter those who went all the way to Sandy Shores and Paleto Bay / National Forest just to mug locals, knowing they were armed because they're allowed to ICly as per the SHAFT code or went to the State Forest just to rob the hunters, it was majorly a group of (M) gangbangers, and it had zero scenes. If you'd go a couple of streets away from your home, it wouldn't be against this rule, but if you went all the way to Sandy Shores when you live around Davis or Vespucci, that'd be questionable.

 

Edited May 2, 2023 by root

[caballero]

2 minutes ago, root said:

This rule was made to counter those who went all the way to Sandy Shores and Paleto Bay / National Forest just to mug locals, knowing they're armed because they're allowed to ICly as per to the SHAFT code or went to the State Forest just to rob the hunters, it was majorly a group of (M) gangbangers and it had zero scene. If you'd go a couple of streets away from your home it wouldn't be against this rule, but if you went all the way to Sandy Shores when you live around Davis or Vespucci that'd be questionable.

 

I understand, but why cannot it be formatted as so? 

Edited May 2, 2023 by caballero

[Anselmi]

4 minutes ago, caballero said:

I understand, but why cannot it be formatted as so? 

Because that wording is pretty specific and would severely limit an administrator's ability to apply the rule to a multitude of different scenarios. Degrees of ambiguity are necessary to allow administrators flexibility in interpreting and applying the rules.

 

Not everything can be worded so cut and dry unless the intent of the rule is to combat a very specific situation. For example, the complete reverse is a viable scenario - whereby people based in Sandy are travelling miles into the city to mug people.

 

It's easier to leave some ambiguity in a rule than it is to flesh it out and write out every possible scenario, which is a pattern you'll find across many of the rules and not just this one. Generally, common sense should dictate what's acceptable and what isn't - but if you're in doubt it wouldn't hurt to ask before doing whatever it is you plan on doing.

[Dark Wizard]

28 minutes ago, Anselmi said:

Because that wording is pretty specific and would severely limit an administrator's ability to apply the rule to a multitude of different scenarios. Degrees of ambiguity are necessary to allow administrators flexibility in interpreting and applying the rules.

 

Not everything can be worded so cut and dry unless the intent of the rule is to combat a very specific situation. For example, the complete reverse is a viable scenario - whereby people based in Sandy are travelling miles into the city to mug people.

 

It's easier to leave some ambiguity in a rule than it is to flesh it out and write out every possible scenario, which is a pattern you'll find across many of the rules and not just this one. Generally, common sense should dictate what's acceptable and what isn't - but if you're in doubt it wouldn't hurt to ask before doing whatever it is you plan on doing.

Yeah but then u get mfers who get ajailed for robbing in vinewood while from davis (you are ONLY allowed to rob in ur own turf apparently 💀)

[Anselmi]

19 minutes ago, Dark Wizard said:

Yeah but then u get mfers who get ajailed for robbing in vinewood while from davis (you are ONLY allowed to rob in ur own turf apparently 💀)

If that's how the rule is being applied, I'd be inclined to agree with OP in that case. That seems excessive and beyond the scope of what the rule was intended to achieve.

 

Not that I was shitting on their post, at least not intentionally, as there's some pretty valid points - generally locals should be well regarded and know the gang members on a personal level (living there and all).

 

EDIT: just checked the continuity wiki for myself and found this snippet.

Maybe "miles" is a bit too ambiguous. I would hope people aren't getting in trouble over what's the equivalent of a 27 mile journey as opposed to 170 miles to the county.

Edited May 2, 2023 by Anselmi

[Nadler]

Like they said, I am sure this rule was created after the wave of robberies in the county area where Davis characters looked to rob hunters in the woods.

[Shanky]

1 hour ago, root said:

This rule was made to counter those who went all the way to Sandy Shores and Paleto Bay / National Forest just to mug locals, knowing they were armed because they're allowed to ICly as per the SHAFT code or went to the State Forest just to rob the hunters, it was majorly a group of (M) gangbangers, and it had zero scenes. If you'd go a couple of streets away from your home, it wouldn't be against this rule, but if you went all the way to Sandy Shores when you live around Davis or Vespucci, that'd be questionable.

 

This exactly, I still see people from Davis/Rancho/Strawberry perform robberies in Vinewood which shouldn't be an issue because it isn't. As you said, you don't shit where you eat even though in most cases, these neighborhoods are considered dangerous because you usually do get robbed by locals there (the local gangs). It's all over the place, in reality you just have to be realistic with how you rob people and you won't get in trouble.

[marbella mondays]

8 minutes ago, Shanky said:

This exactly, I still see people from Davis/Rancho/Strawberry perform robberies in Vinewood which shouldn't be an issue because it isn't. As you said, you don't shit where you eat even though in most cases, these neighborhoods are considered dangerous because you usually do get robbed by locals there (the local gangs). It's all over the place, in reality you just have to be realistic with how you rob people and you won't get in trouble.