Sleuth Home - Message Boards - Sleuth Talk

Oct-5-2005 22:11

I wonder if there would be any way, or how difficult it would be, to make it where ONLY the Directors could sell items from the Equipment Locker?
Be like how rookies have no access to the locker. It could be made that Agents have access ofcourse but Directors ONLY are the only ones able to sell anything from there.
Might be a bad idea but, I think it would be cool to have it that way.

Oct-6-2005 18:00

Laughs with Mak,

No, it is a good thing to discuss ideas like this in the open so everyone can see both sides. Ben just might get a spark from something and take it in a totaly new direction.

No one says I am right or you are right, it is the conversation that is important.

Oct-6-2005 20:33

Very true R :o)

Oct-8-2005 11:16

It is a good idea to be attached to the agency's more expensive items, but in my agency all items (except for things bought by a character for their character) are open to the entire agency because there is nothing more frustrating for an up and coming detective who is working on the final favor for a hunt to find the dog has been locked up for officers only, you have to take chances for the good of the entire team. If Directors only are allowed to sell, that isn't fair to someone who stores their items in the locker, then decides to sell their own items.

Oct-8-2005 12:11

I think preventing agency theft as much as possible is a good idea. In this case I would suggest director AND officer. Simply because there are some agencies that limit the number of directors. But do need more then 1 person to be able to sell equipment to operationally function.

Personally, I'd really like to see more levels of agents (Presidents, Vice-Presidents etc.) Or where you can assign specific titles with associated tasks (the recruiter, the treasurer, buyer/sales manager etc.) Situations where one director also has treasurer capabilities, but not the other director. Or you can be treasurer and recruiter at the same time. I think this allows more defined designated "permissions" in an agency. And also means you can readily promote someone to director, without bank access. You become more like a real business.
And more levels of agents...means more promotions. And being promoted is just more fun. I have always have issues with the limited amount of promotion possibilities. Because sometimes you have people at the same level of title, but yet....it still doesn't feel right to you. Perhaps give the uber-director the opportunity, to set "specific" permissions to each person in their agency. Among which the possibility of selling items.

Another option is. Tagging equipment if they a) can be sold, b) someone can quit the agency with the equipment on. This leaves the option of some equipment being able to be sold by anyone. And others only by directors (or officers)....like for instance the more expensive items in the locker.

Or even better. If equipment is tagged to NEVER leave an agency. And it does, it is simply marked (or dare I say brandmarked), as STOLEN GOODS.

Though I do think the possibility of theft can be considered a game element by some. Infiltration and theft, could potentially be something kinda fun, if it became an acccepted norm. Another game, where one agency can rip off the other, in form as a game element.

Oct-8-2005 12:12

However, I think what would take a knock is the community spirit. Can you imagine the exposure to that on the message board. To introduce the acceptability of agency theft....requires somewhat of a revolution. :)

In any case, I am getting off track here. The main reason why I think as many controls as possible should be built in to safe guard agency theft. Is not only because of peoples hard work. But also because the impression it leaves on new players, and as a result they would not sub again.

Oct-8-2005 12:15

What is also something to think about, is a situation where items over a certain value can not be sold. Or if a director wants to take more then a certain amount of money out of the safe, they need to have permission of another director. Or the CFO. :)

The reason why I am saying this, because we have seen many examples in here, of 2 directors starting an agency together, and one robbing the other blind. And then the victim director, never daring to start a new agency again. (and scream about it on the message board.)

Oct-8-2005 16:39

Lots of interesting possibilities!

I can see why some might think that infiltrating another agency to steal money or equipment might be legitimate part of the role playing of the game, but I hope that particular "revolution" never happens, as one of the things I really like about this gaming community is that people generally say what they mean and mean what they say, which leads to good things like warmth, trust, and mutual support.

When agencies are infiltrated by sneak thieves, the general reaction by the victims if one of an abuse of trust, a feeling of being lied to or violated in some way. And that just isn't fun.

I value this game for being fun and creating friendships, and I want to keep it that way.

Oct-8-2005 19:25

What if, instead of trying to prevent stealing from agencies, track each agents "amt owed" to the agency. This would be a running total of that person's share of the rent + items/money donated - items/money taken. Another director can alter the amt owed (+ or -).

In order to resign from the agency, the amt owed would have to be 0. If you owe money, you have to either pay it off or get another director to absolve your debt. If you were owed money, you have to either let it go or get a director to write you a check (or, if you were a director, you could go in the safe and take what was "rightfully" yours).

Oct-8-2005 23:14

Interesting thought, Sherlock!

I'm not sure that does much for the gear aspect of things, though, because gear can be worth more to the agency than just the money it costs. Some items can only be gotten at the Cabaret or from a faction, or only from an almost impossible case or a favor at a level that no one in the agency has favors at any more, or in another city....so having someone leave with that item if they had to pay what it is "worth" could be frustrating to the agency...unless perhaps the directors could set the agency value on some items higher than their game-specified value?

I think that would make the idea work for me...

Oct-9-2005 02:58

Heheheheh, so you could technically hold an agent ransom in your agency prevening them to leave until debts are paid. I think the problem is, you may get stuck with someone that you rather have leave now then later.