There appears to be some miscommunication. I would just like to take this opportunity to clarify the situation. We asked for clarification from the poster about the PP/mug rule thread. I am clarifying his misunderstanding by correcting his repeated incorrect information. Once again he was simply asked to clarify it and reminded that banning game features wasn’t okay if that was the case. We were bombarded with questions regarding it which is why we asked for clarification. This clarification did not come so we asked for a Crewleader meeting once again to seek clarification. At no point did we say or ask for its removal.

So why did we ask for clarification?

The banning of a feature is something that people were interpreting from the PP rule. The rule as stated was fine, as it didn't include anything about mugging. Some CL's (and players) interpreted the rule as people under Made Man were unable to mug Made+ if the Made+ initiated the PP exchange. Which is something we consider to be banning a feature.

Saying that under Made can't PP Made+ was a perfectly fine rule as there are plenty of other things they can target. This is similar to rules in place about shooting sponsored members. There are plenty of other targets to be killed so saying that you can't random wack certain people is allowed. An example of something you can't do would be telling members they are not allowed to duel anyone.

The issue is saying that people under Made cannot mug people above Made. Saying that they cannot PP people above Made would be allowed. By not allowing people under Made to defend themselves by mugging the person that PP'd them that would be banning them from using the feature under penalty of death. This is the same reason why we offer duelling as a way to get around the rules about killing other sponsored members. Both require accepting the risk before it can happen. When you PP someone you accept the risk of getting mugged, when you duel someone you accept the risk of getting killed.

We would also like to take this opportunity to remind people of the Policy/TOS Agreement that everybody has signed upon creating their accounts. It can be found on the creating an account page or by clicking here

well said'

I am definitely not going to weigh in on anything else that was posted here but I would like to point out that in the terms of service linked the wording around the ruling you are referring to is as follows.

I certify that I fully accept I am not allowed to ban other users from using features of this game that are consensual. (Features like Dueling or Mugging.)

Now seeing that terms of service are essentially a legal agreement they do need to be worded correctly and If we examine the word consensual for a moment. 

Consensual definition: 1. with the willing agreement of all the people involved

Dueling requires both parties to accept so does qualify as a mutual feature.

When you mug someone they are not asked for consent if they would like to be mugged, meaning this is not a consensual activity. If you are going to argue that by pickpocketing someone you are giving them consent to mug you then that is exactly the case with the pickpocket ruling that was withdrawn. 

If we look at the the inclusion of dueling in the wording of the TOS  rules it creates a lot of ambiguity and, should it ever reach an actual court (which would be hilarious if it did) I think you would struggle to defend your case.

I would humbly suggest rewording it, just a thought :)

This was wishy-washy in my opinion. There was never a rule (only a silent one) that associates could not pp MM. That in itself is another subject. Maybe the silence is still in effect?