(Sep 23, 2018, 07:28 PM)Overlewd Wrote: And where am I going to get the money from them if they physically haven't made enough money to pay you back, much less to pay you 5x? Force sell all their items? What if someone's computer dies and they end up losing their entire inventory because they couldn't log on for a week and you made a "5x more" contract? It's a pain for everyone involved.

(Sep 23, 2018, 11:20 PM)Gungranny Wrote: Exchange of something.

Jim offers Troy a service or an item in exchange for something (money, work, etc.)
If Troy takes the item without the requested item in exchange, Troy is scamming.
If Jim takes the requested exchange item and doesn not give the offered item or service, Jim is scamming.

It’s very simple. If someone agreed to pay interest on a loan to you, they MUST pay the interest. If not, they can be seen as scamming, unless obviously they have OOC problems and aren’t able to pay it. If they don’t have the money, an exchange of goods meeting the payment may suffice. If they LITERALLY have no way to pay for it it’s considered scamming. If they literally couldn’t pay for it in any way they shouldn’t taken the loan out.

(Sep 23, 2018, 11:20 PM)Gungranny Wrote: Exchange of something.

Jim offers Troy a service or an item in exchange for something (money, work, etc.)
If Troy takes the item without the requested item in exchange, Troy is scamming.
If Jim takes the requested exchange item and doesn not give the offered item or service, Jim is scamming.

(Sep 23, 2018, 11:56 PM)BlackDog Wrote: I dono, considering scamming almost always carries the punishment of a Perma*, what constitutes scamming should really not be left up to individual preference.

Jim pays and hires Bob to protect him, Bob wants to kill Jim but he doesnt know it, Bob kills jim, takes the money and leaves with anything else he can find on site.

Again by the logic above this is scamming, even though its entirely an IC action.

Scamming as it is currently does not have an actual definition on how its to be enforced, at least as far as a player can tell and thus cannot actualy determine what beyond the act of swipeing items that have just been dropped is actualy considered scamming.


1.6 - Scamming is not allowed. Also, do not steal items which other players have dropped to carry out a transaction. 

Since the rule in no way states whether this is infact IC or OOC related, nor gives any examples beyond an outdated tradeing method from 2 years ago, by its wording it relates to ALL scamming, IC/OOC and all types no matter what was done.

Player sets fire to their own home and calls the fire department? Attempted insurance Fraud? Scam


Player sets up fake No Parking Zone signs, calls tow truck to tow vehicles who do park to earn money. Scam

Player sells false information to the PD about a crime group they are tracking? Scam

The policy in regards to "scams" needs to be updated and fleshed out beyond just saying "No Scamming" as that by itself helps no one, and by its word hurts everyone.

(Sep 24, 2018, 05:37 AM)Jokhah Wrote: Scamming should be classified in two parts

Absolute scamming: When someone promises to pay for items/goods/services but doesn't deliver after receiving payment.

(IC situations occur where this is a normal occurance: Criminal protection services, drug crime etc, by lumping these types into this kind of rule, you forbid the RP types connected to them.)

Situational scamming: When someone downplays ability/throws shots/allows negative actions, after receiving payment.

(Same point as above, by applying this to IC situations, you eliminate all RP types connected to the action in question.)

The first is point blank and typically enforceable with logs or screenshots of chats.

The second is harder to prove and far less enforceable.  I can fight 5v1 some days, other days I might lose 3 before winning a 1v1.  You'd have to be able to prove the person did what they did intentionally, which is pretty much impossible without them admitting as such.