FC Chest just gets raded, and GMs can do nothing.

[Maracrea13x]

Actions taken for the sole purpose of scamming, cheating, or stealing need repercussions. We have all the information logged, we have GM's, and we have people committing offenses for the sole purpose of causing grief. There's no reason why such situations should not at least be investigated at a basic level to deter people from trying to perform the same actions in the future.

Ok, who got scammed here? This has nothing to do with this topic...

[Krylo]

Scenario

Here's a scenario for you:

A couple of people decide they don't like another player and want to get him banned and hear he needs some things, notably airship parts for his actual guild, so one of them tosses them a private message on Reddit. "Hey, we have those in our FC chest, send a tell to _____ asking to be let in for a bit and you can grab them. We'll set permissions so members can grab items for a little while." The guy believes them because, hey, you can't trade airship parts normally and some people are pretty helpful, so it isn't out of the realm of possibility you might be offered things.

They then wait until he 'steals' these items and send a report to a GM about the 'thief'.

True or not, what does the GM do? Whose word does he take? The 'thief's'? Does he then punish the guild members for trying to get someone banned? Everyone involved?

Or maybe the thief was real life friends with another officer who decided it wouldn't be a big deal to give him those things to help his guild but didn't tell anyone else about it.

When the guy takes these things, understandably, other guild members are upset and contact a GM who contacts the 'thief'. He tells the GM about this.

Again, what does the GM do? Believe the thief? Ban him? Ban the officer?

Or does he just explain that GMs can't get involved in things where there's not solid proof that there was a deal in place that was broken in chat logs.

[Ehr]

It's a shame what happened, but like others have said, it's shared items so it's technically not stealing. This happened to my FC once and after that they restricted FC chest access to raiders and above. After some leadership changes chest access was given to "Members" and our entry rank can't access it. Recently with company airships we've decided to dedicate a page to FC crafting materials and airship parts and lock it to our Officer, General, and leader ranks. Just make a dedicated page for rarer materials and such and lock it to higher ranks. There isn't really much you can do to get what was stolen back.

[Galactimus]

And again taking "SHARED ASSETS" IREPEAT "SHARED ASSETS"!!! is not stealing.

Right, however in the realm of "Morality" IREPEAT "Morality"!!! taking or destroying everything an FC owns just before leaving can be EASILY punishable in the eyes of a GM that is allowed to care. "Shared assets" is such a silly scapegoat. However, like I said before, a GM won't always be able to do something. And the victim may not get the result he wanted. But at least he is heard and given a chance.

[Nyerieri]

Who is to judge what is moral and not immoral? Such wide range of views there.

[Maracrea13x]

Right, however in the realm of "Morality" IREPEAT "Morality"!!! taking or destroying everything an FC owns just before leaving can be EASILY punishable in the eyes of a GM that is allowed to care. "Shared assets" is such a silly scapegoat. However, like I said before, a GM won't always be able to do something. And the victim may not get the result he wanted. But at least he is heard and given a chance.

Why do you think that they want to care? This is a video game, if you really expect people to be moral on a video game then you my friend are in for quite an awakening. All SE cares about is getting that monthly fee from you, nothing more, nothing less.

[joshdavis271]

Whatever you say chief, Since we cannot be held responsible for our own free company, I think FCs should be reduced to that of Linkshells since you cannot comprehend permissions... its to make things simpler for you folk.

[Galactimus]

Whatever you say chief, Since we cannot be held responsible for our own free company, I think FCs should be reduced to that of Linkshells since you cannot comprehend permissions... its to make things simpler for you folk.

There's no need to devolve into rudementary banter. I've never had a problem with permissions. There's nothing wrong with permissions. And indeed people need to pay more attention to the permissions they give to members; especially those who are new. I've already said many times "you folk" are correct about this. However, problems CLEARLY arise. There's no reason why GM's cannot be given the privileges to investigate some of the more ridiculously extreme cases of Free Company destruction.

Stop fighting it chief, you know you'd like to see justice every now and again.

[joshdavis271]

There's no need to devolve into rudementary banter. I've never had a problem with permissions. There's nothing wrong with permissions. And indeed people need to pay more attention to the permissions they give to members; especially those who are new. I've already said many times "you folk" are correct about this. However, problems CLEARLY arise. There's no reason why GM's cannot be given the privileges to investigate some of the more ridiculously extreme cases of Free Company destruction.

Stop fighting it chief, you know you'd like to see justice every now and again.

Well justice would be served if publicly outed, the community will handle it accordingly, if this person is a repeat offender, he wont be able to join another free company for long.

[Galactimus]

It's ironic that your form of justice breaks the Terms of Service Agreement whereas Stealing from FC's does not.