Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Sleuth Talk

Feb-16-2008 18:02

I think its time to revisit the idea of subscription limits for onw person within an agency. It's been the rule that one individual person can only sub up to two people in an agency. After that it's considered an unfair advantage. This was the case a while ago, maybe not so much anymore. I currently have 3 subbed detectives, ctown, Brady Quinn and Bonelady. I have never hid that but also never really offered that information. I really wasn't aware of the "rule" that is really impossible to enforce. What about couples that log in from the same IP address, families, etc.

Anyhow, when this was brought to my attention, I decided to move Brady Quinn out of Dawg Pound Investigations to avoid any conflict before omeone complained. I still think this is an unfair rule. The agencies that have "control" of their detectives because they have gone inactive and the directors know the passwords actually gives a better advantage. They got that control, yet someone else has paid their money for it. IMHO, if I want to pay to sub 3 dets, thats my money paying for it. Either lift that silly rule or ban password sharing. I don't see how you can have it both ways. Now remember, this is to be an open debate, if you are looking for an argument, find a different thread, if you disagree but want to be objective, please post and lets have a respectful debate!

Feb-19-2008 05:44

Please forgive Huglover for lying. She had to quit quite some of those favors, so she did not do THAT many cases yesterday....
She easily get confused, and did not count/calculate the amount properly.

Feb-23-2008 08:31

OK, I have to admit I haven't read every post in the thread because it's got so long, but I have to say I do not have a problem with agencies having every agent controlled by the one player, provided they do not get involved in Treasure Hunts.

It's simple, if an agency has one player controlling all the agents, they can stack up all the favours and blitz a TH straight away. It's cheating. I know an agency that does just this and I am frustrated when I see my team work so hard to get themselves co-ordinated and give so much time and energy to a TH for someone to come on and beat us in such a lazy fashion. It also puts me off getting TIA involved in them very often.

To be honest I've written all this and come to the conclusion that I don't care. It can't be policed anyway and I know it is going on. I can't see us wasting much time on them now.

Mar-5-2008 04:07

I understand the reason for password sharing but will never join an agency where this is done. I know of one where, despite the sleuth asking the director not to use their cases until a certain time of the day, ie giving that sleuth time in their own timezone to at least start some cases, the director went in did all the cases and the sleuth who was paying played nothing that day. Needless to say he left the agency that day.

The strange thing is that, so I'm told, the director found it strange that the sleuth left and couldn't figure out why!

I know that I inadvertently signed off for the night with Smart clothes on which others wanted so it was useful that the director could strip me of them - I was a tad embarrassed but glad that she could take them to help someone else!