Hello my username is Lehon_ and my suggestion is to allow someone that has debit owed to them seize property/items from the player that owes debit to a player. An example of this in use is: Player A owes 10k to player B, Player A does not have this amount of money and Player B doesn't want to lose 10k. Player A isn't going to pay his/her debit, but Player A also owns a max tool. Player B knows this so Player B could seize the tool and Player A no longer owes Player B money (this would be done with a contract). Another example of this in use is: Player A owes 100k to player B, Player A does not have this amount of money and Player B doesn't want to lose 100k. Player A isn't going to pay his/her debit so he/she leaves the server and has been inactive for quite some time. Player B then seizes the town and has aprox. 100k again etc. My reason for this is so that people will not lose money.
Not exactly sure where in the process you are wanting this implemented. Offering property as collateral or in exchange for waiving debt is something we allow and is at the discretion of the players making the agreement. I'm very very hesitant to put the non-willing removal of property as an official system as it can be very hard to ascertain a "value" of towns. The only fair way would have some official way to auction goods/towns. However this system is open to harming its usefulness as if we find, say, a dchest of max tools, we can't sell them all or we'll drastically drop the price of that good and compete with regular player goods.
I agree with what Nicit said. You are always able to claim something in advance to give it back once the loan has been paid. Also, this poll may be a bit... biased in its choices.
What? There is a Yes, a No and an I don't know. How is that biased? Biased would be a Yes and an I don't know.
It's a nice idea in theory - It would be the same as taking security over a loan in real life, like say a mortgage over your house. The issue though lies with actually enforcing it. Even if you removed selling anything, you would still have to find the item to be able to take possession of it. This would likely fall on GA+ as only they have the ability to look into chests, and only Phys/Nicit have the ability to track /own'ed items and remove them from inventories etc. Ultimately it would just require too much of a time commitment from the top staff members. (And there are still numerous ways to hide items from even those with access to logs/all commands - trust me on that, I've been on the other side looking for things! )
Acceptable, although it could be worded better. That part is simply unneeded and makes it look like a poll with biased wording of the choices as somebody voting for this answer because of the first part is then also associated with the second part.
Very good points. I believe that this post has too many flaws, so if it could be locked that would be great - Leon
Yes, so somebody who is against the suggestion is also supposed to be against you according to the poll. This implication makes it slightly biased in its wording.
This idea sucks and you suck I like the idea as someone who loans out alot, but the value of things changes so often, and you can already place it in a contract as co-lateral, so there really isn't any reason to do this.
Good idea but difficult to execute. Plus there's already ways to do this. I loan out a lot of money, if I don't trust the user we can create a contract saying that if they don't pay the loan I am able to take their town/startool/item/etc. Depending on what they agree to, a lot of this is all very possible through contracts.
I don't see how this helps. I've lost 40k to a scam loan, but this guy owes 300k in loans. His inventory and nap have been cleared to. How is he supposed to pay his debt back? Stories like this would come up a lot. This just has to many loop holes.
Always add collateral in your contracts and always make a contract on the forum rather then in game. Then you can have collateral and all sorts added into your contract The perks of making contracts on the forums.
