Is abusing negative money on hand a fair mechanic?

Really? I thought it just set back to zero? 

Which people?

As re-shared by ANG3L in this thread, Lusty was fedded for a lot more than just selling with negative money at hand.

If it's too good to be true ...

This negative money on hand thing has existed for a long time now, and it is not like they are actively doing something to abuse this feature.

Most muggers from back in the day, especially after the arbitrage betting scandal, just dealt with it when they got caught out by something like this, and they learnt and noted who had negative cash on hand.

Good on the seller for making the most out of the situation.

And honestly, if someone out there seems too good to be true, it probably is.

Torn would not function without greed.

This is true but so does capitalism.  What bogie meant is you are a victim of your own greed, not bug exploitation.

What upsets me in this particular scenario is the unfairness of the mechanic. There is no counter, no promotion of active play. Which is why it feels more like exploitation of a game mechanic rather than a fair use of one.

Wouldn't you be able to check the player's total net worth before buy mugging?  Why wouldn't this considered as "counter"?

It's also possible to spy how much money a player has on hand...

One of the three main reasons was because of bug abuse/exploit. Whatever you want to call it. If that reason suddenly doesn't apply to another person in a very similar situation what makes it a bug abuse versus not? What's the difference?

Is it bug abuse or not? Can't have it both ways. 

Up to you

How you can even have negative money on hand? This itself looks like a bug to me-there is no such thing in real life to begin with...every real bank will just steal your parachutes at MV and not let you list them

How do I take advantage of a gambling error to get negative money?

for me the vote on OP or not depends on how easy it is to get that negative

It only became abuse/exploit because of his use of multis and proxy betting to get more accounts with negative money on hand.

In the screenshots they literally write that selling with negative money on hand is NOT an abuse/exploit.

Whatever wrong you believe was done to Lusty, in this specific case I really don't see why you leave out the other dodgy things to make a false comparison with the topic of this thread.

Some people might just call it Karma ?

Soooooo... Why is the rule -Negative Cash on Hand and not -Negative Bank Balance if the punishment was -> -Negative Bank Balance wouldn't that mean Punished Player would have to keep money in hand unable to use Bank until balance was Restored? So why is it negative cash on hand is there a rule or game mechanic im missing? Please someone inform me, I have to Know why this Obscure Rule is in place and why not the other Obscure Rule? Why?????? CANT ANYONE HEAR ME!!!??? WHY??????????

0 counter play?

u mean besides the job special that reveals money on hand?

seems like u should be on your way to retard station

I'm still 2 pages behind on this thread, it's moving too fast for my slow Friday brain, but...

I could not care less if a buy mugger missed his mark, that's a gamble they take.

This is about debt. And unpaid debt should accrue. It should not be allowed to be used to benefit from, and should have penalties or interest if not cleared in a timely manner. 

If you owe taxes, you get interest added, and possibly get wages garnered. If you owe on a credit card, to get interest added, possible legal repercussions eventually.  If you have a mortgage,  you pay interest and could lose your home for not paying. If you owe a bookie, it could cost you your kneecaps or a family member. 

Debt is not something that should be interest free, or something to gain benefits from

imo the bug exploit is how you walked away without receiving a negative balance from it

change 

FreeSpirit mugged Sqall for $0

to

FreeSpirit mugged Sqall for -$150,000,000

If you mug someone you're supposed to get a % of their balance

Load image

What I find odd here is that they seemed to convert their entire networth into SEs. I'm not much of a gambler but that seems like a bold move unless they had a feeling it would be reverted.

Question:

Are you more upset that there was an uncalculated risk that you didn't account for?  Or that the person with the negative balance was able to sell above market without the risk of being the target of muggings?

Because those are two different things.

(Would this have even been an issue to you if he was selling below MV?)

[image: media1.tenor.com]