FC Chest Looting

[TheCurls]

Then the lesson was learned. Maybe the FC master needs to make it Read-Only and distribute items to the people that need them, instead. There are tools available. This is not SE's problem.

There's also the situation where someone did this and was fine, but then the FC master and the player had a falling out and the FC master reported them just to get back at them. There's opportunity for abuse on both sides. So, again. Next time, set the permissions properly.

[UltimateAoe2]

Imo, both sides.

A) You didn't correct your permissions. Your fault on that.
B) GMs aren't allowed to tell you what they do to punish said player, or even if they got banned. It's against their policy.


but then again its really your fault, like how can you oversee your perms? >_>;

[Anethum]

The rationality that there could be abuse ignores the abuses currently happening.

B) GMs aren't allowed to tell you what they do to punish said player, or even if they got banned. It's against their policy.

They aren't, no. I asked what the common resolution to this scenario would entail. Due to their privacy policy, they could not tell me what the specific resolution to my report would be.

[Evangela]

I think they can take the items back but they have no reason to inform him why they have to do so. He didn't violate any rule. You gave him the right to withdraw stuffs and he took stuffs. Nothing's wrong with that.

[Zari]

Regardless of what happens, this should be a lesson to not just have free permissions in the chest

Only give the chest permissions to the higher ups who can then distribute the items to people who need them if asked.

[BlatantPyre]

This may be beside the point, but there is another issue I have noticed that may add to this argument: the ability to promote yourself (or demote those above you) if you have promotion allowance. I have heard of many fc's having an issue when one of their officers decided to go rogue and invite/promote hostile people into the fc for the sole purpose of stealing. Having the ability of promotion is essentially having the ability to change all rules, since (unless this has changed, I haven't checked in a while) you can promote yourself. From what I understand, this did not occur in this instance, but it has been a problem for others, and I don't understand why such a system made sense to the devs in the first place...

That all being said, fc's should be mindful of every allowance a specific rank has, and should be aware that in a game environment it is the mechanics of the game itself that protect you (or leave you wide open), not agreements among players. Most of our friends in MMO's are in truth strangers in reality, and the rules of these small worlds are vastly different than the real world. Do I think the GM's should be better equipped to deal with problems such as this? Absolutely, having such a glaring hole (this has happened to many fc's) is a huge problem, and OP is correct in the fact that other MMO's handle such things far better, sadly. But this does not change the fact that the perpetrator was allowed to do the deed by the other officers due to negligence of the current terrain and minutia of the fc mechanics, poor though they may be.

I agree that SE needs to figure out a way to keep things like this from happening, but the blame does not fall with the GM's or their ability to "punish". My apologies to those who were affected by this theft, it really does suck what this person did to you, but the response by the GMs is adequate. Who you really should be going after is the devs for having a very odd system in play for fc rankings...but even more-so, because of the limited system, you should really only have 2-3 people in charge of most allowances in your fc, and prepare for the possible loss of anything that goes into the chest just through daily play, let alone by anyone with vile intent.

[PArcher]

I'm going to parrot what's been said; he had permission to take the items, so none of the game's rules were broken.

This is fully the fault of whoever set the permissions.

And having FC rules in place doesn't mean they are the game's rules. The GM enforce the rules they have, not every little variation someone can make for a very specific situation.

Set your permissions properly, or this is likely to happen again (and no, the GMs still won't do anything because no game rule has been broken)

[SinisterJointss]

Again, it's still disruption and griefing.

Im suprised this is STILL happening. Its simple, it's your FC leaderships fault (if you're the leader, its your fault) for not looking at and setting the permission of the ranks correctly. Was it a crappy move on the person that robbed your fc? Of course, nobody is debating that. But its still... your FC leaderships fault

[FaileExperiment]

Just so you're aware, the FC in question had a very publicly known set of rules governing the FC chest: take only if you are going to put to personal use (e.g. melding onto your own gear, planting in your own garden). The culprit clearly did not fit these requirements and so was not qualified to take them, which means that what he did constitutes theft, conversion of stolen property, fraud, and most importantly a breach of duty and of the confidence everyone else in FC had in him. All of these would be legally punishable offenses in the real world, and yes, even oral informal agreements such as these are considered valid and enforceable contracts. OP is suggesting that GMs have the power to judge and penalize griefers in situations like these.

Public property is meant to be used by those who need it, not abused by those with malicious intent. Instead of victim-shaming, perhaps the focus should return to OP's original question as it was intended.

Then in this case the FC's house rules did not match the permissions set on the FC chest. If he had permission to loot, then he had permission to loot. You can call it theft if you want to, but it isn't theft, or conversion of stolen property or whatever else you want to make up. At worst, he only broke the FC's house rules. Other than that, he was indeed fully qualified to take the items, as evidenced by the fact that he had in-game permission to... you know... take the items. That's the only qualification that is relevant, after all. The reason that GMs don't have the power to enforce your "oral informal agreements" is because the permissions already cover this ground. It's there so SE doesn't need to be.

There's no victim shaming going on here, primarily because there is no victim. People are just stating the obvious: the FC master messed up, and someone took advantage of it. The focus is right where is belongs.

[Synrin]

I don't think GMs can intervene considering it's technically you guy's fault for not watching the permissions you have on your ranks.

Oh boy, don't you just love people like this? For all you know, they might have trusted the guy, he might have been a crafter or w/e, and then he decided to do this. He could've been a friend but the relationship went sour. So what are you saying? That only the FC leader should have access to it? But wait, even the leader can take things for personal profit and just take everything others have been depositing for the greater good. Oh my, what a paranoia, we might as well not have the chests to begin with.