Cap the Number of Bankers to 1

[UrdnotWrex 94]

Description: Reduce the number of bankers allowed at any given time from 2 to 1.

	Reasoning: Due to the fact that there is only one bank that a banker is able to base at, it does not make sense to allow two bankers at any given time. Otherwise, people can exploit a loophole in the rules such that if an existing bank already is in use, a second player can become a banker and force themselves in. This was proven to be a tactic used just today where someone became a banker and blew up a 30+ printer bank. This is a repeatable exploit that anyone can abuse if a banker is already utilizing the bank.

	Additional Information: N/A

Edited August 11, 2021 by UrdnotWrex

[Ruko 78]

+1 only have one banker or have two banks

[bearboobs 64]

I agree with this fullheartedly, and I bet other people will agree too. @Adric @Canlex @Glorbnob @Ruko @GrandDaddyStalin

[Glorbnob 260]

+1 it is so annoying when someone tries to force themselves into the base just so they can minge and ruin everything you have been doing 

[Ba11ParkFrank41 223]

1 minute ago, bearboobs said:

I agree with this fullheartedly, and I bet other people will agree too.

I suggest even though the punishment is only the length of failrp warn I highly suggest you push this to a nitrp ban at least if not more for all the time you guys put into that bank and was having fun and enjoying the role play. This guy ruined it in seconds. Please making a report in the darkrp "reports/appeals" section. Up to you but I see this being put towards a NITRP ban if accepted.

[Ruko 78]

1 minute ago, Ba11ParkFrank41 said:

I suggest even though the punishment is only the length of failrp warn I highly suggest you push this to a nitrp ban

They were banned for NITRP

[aidanpoppas123 512]

+1

yes

[ShankNinja 801]

2 minutes ago, UrdnotWrex said:

Description: Reduce the number of bankers allowed at any given time from 2 to 1.

	Reasoning: Due to the fact that there is only one bank that a banker is able to base at, it does not make sense to allow two bankers at any given time. Otherwise, people can exploit a loophole in the rules such that if an existing bank already is in use, a second player can become a banker and force themselves in. This was proven to be a tactic used just today where someone became a banker and blew up a 30+ printer bank. This is a repeatable exploit that anyone can abuse if a banker is already utilizing the bank.

	Additional Information: N/A

-1

What? I've seen 2 bankers basing together before.

How on Earth can a banker "force" themselves in?? Can you refer the 'loophole' described here? The rules have been in place for years and I've NEVER seen such an exploit in use.

 Banker

    You must base inside of the bank found across from fountain
    Within the Banker's bank, printers can be legally stored and operated
    You may not withhold the printer or its money from a client.
    You may not destroy a client's printers.
    You may not own a weapon larger than a pistol.
    You may not base with raiding classes.

With the way Parties, Security Guards, etc. work along with the rules above, I am not seeing this as an issue.
Nothing in the rules says you must allow a banker into a pre-existing bank and watch them blow up the printers in front of you. In fact, the rules say quite the opposite

This looks to be more an issue of blindly trusting somebody and not promptly kicking them out of the party. Did they ruin the bank for everybody else? It looks like it. Could it have been prevented? Well, considering this has never been an issue until today, I am thinking that this was a lapse in judgment and should be treated as such.

The EXACT same thing would happen if you blindly let a Security Guard blow up all the printers in your base while you stood completely still and allowed it. I don't see how limiting the Banker class solves this.

[BINLADINHOE 322]

+1 It used to make sense to have 2ish bankers when people would not base inside the actual bank and instead would set up private banks so they could compete. Now that people only base in the bank there should only be one so that there cant be shit like that going on.

[Glorbnob 260]

Shank we were specifically told by staff we had to let him into the bank and base with us, we had no choice in letting him 

[UrdnotWrex 94]

5 minutes ago, ShankNinja said:

 This looks to be more an issue of blindly trusting somebody and not promptly kicking them out of the party. 

Except this person was never invited into the main bank's party. They were only let in because it was reported and an admin said they had to be let into the bank. That's different than a security guard getting hired and breaking the owner's trust. This was intentionally exploited by the abuser creating a report.

Edited August 11, 2021 by UrdnotWrex

[bearboobs 64]

Just now, ShankNinja said:

-1

What? I've seen 2 bankers basing together before.

How on Earth can a banker "force" themselves in?? Can you refer the 'loophole' described here? The rules have been in place for years and I've NEVER seen such an exploit in use.

 Banker

    You must base inside of the bank found across from fountain
    Within the Banker's bank, printers can be legally stored and operated
    You may not withhold the printer or its money from a client.
    You may not destroy a client's printers.
    You may not own a weapon larger than a pistol.
    You may not base with raiding classes.

With the way Parties, Security Guards, etc. work along with the rules above, I am not seeing this as an issue.
Nothing in the rules says you must allow a banker into a pre-existing bank and watch them blow up the printers in front of you. In fact, the rules say quite the opposite

This looks to be more an issue of blindly trusting somebody and not promptly kicking them out of the party. Did they ruin the bank for everybody else? It looks like it. Could it have been prevented? Well, considering this has never been an issue until today, I am thinking that this was a lapse in judgment and should be treated as such.

The EXACT same thing would happen if you blindly let a Security Guard blow up all the printers in your base while you stood completely still and allowed it. I don't see how limiting the Banker class solves this.

We already had set up a bank with security, people we trusted, and friends that were mercenaries and security guards so that we could make money together. When there is two bankers, and there is already a hagiarchy completely made for the bank, the other banker is literally forced to base with them since he technically "owns the doors", and has to be allowed in and invited to the party, etc. @GrosCave

They were already banned for NITRP, but who says this will happen again? Dogshit mingy players, like the user that I prompted in the post, would probably do this again. 

As for the rules that we're broken you can CLEARLY SEE under the "Banker" Job, "You may not destroy a client's printers. WHICH HE DID ON MULTIPLE OCASIONS AS SEEN! How do you see that this is NOT a problem?

[ShankNinja 801]

Just now, BINLADINHOE said:

+1 It used to make sense to have 2ish bankers when people would not base inside the actual bank and instead would set up private banks so they could compete.

No........
 

 Banker

    You must base inside of the bank found across from fountain
    Within the Banker's bank, printers can be legally stored and operated
    You may not withhold the printer or its money from a client.
    You may not destroy a client's printers.
    You may not own a weapon larger than a pistol.
    You may not base with raiding classes.


Are we going to let one minge reduce the amount of Bankers that can work together? If a long-running bank wants to be successful sometimes one banker might need to let the other take over for a short while. It can't be expected that one man run the bank by himself with a myriad of guards, especially if the banker or the guard are just letting people in to destroy their printers.

 

Quote

Now that people only base in the bank there should only be one so that there cant be shit like that going on.

Can somebody please explain how this is any different than a security guard being let into the party?

  

Just now, UrdnotWrex said:

Except this person was never invited into the main bank's party. They were only let in because it was reported and an admin said they had to be let into the bank. That's different than a security guard hired and breaking the owner's trust. This was intentionally exploited by the abuser as a report.

Sounds like a case of the staff not knowing the rules. It happens.
The rules don't state  that a Banker must allow other Bankers to base with them, rather that they can't base anywhere else. If the Banker rules said "You must allow all other Bankers into your party and not kick them out when destroying your printers" then yes, I could see some change needing to be made.

However, this has NEVER been an issue. I'd like to see a higher up say that Bankers must allow all other Bankers to base with them, then I could see some issue here.

[bearboobs 64]

Just now, ShankNinja said:

Can somebody please explain how this is any different than a security guard being let into the party?

This is only allowed because they are HIRED. NOT forced to base with us. 

[Adric 307]

He was never invited in. Whiskey and Coke was in our bank minging the lobby earlier. he came in multiple times throughout the day. Then he switches to banker and i tell him he cant come in. He gets staffinvloved and hes forced his way into the bank despite my pleading.

https://streamable.com/ajjh3j

hours and hours of work and trust just destroyed due to oversite. Please change this or add a rule concerning how bankers party.