Does this not benefit rogues though too Izzy, like if i buy out of a family and go on a random killing spree (unnecessary bloodshed), its now harming the guns of those who take me out? Or does the active unsponsored lose their -1 status if the do naughty things themselves such as shooting?

Can we meet in the middle; if they are shooting at active players they should lose the -1 tattoo. That way for legitimate issues it won't hinder the community .

Thats kind of what i was driving at Taylor. I have no issue with protecting the innocient, hell make it -10. But once someone starts shooting themselves, they are no longer innocient and should be afforded no protection in game.

Well its an issue Alan. Its not just -1 for shooting a rogue, it could be another -20 for killing all his proers into the bargain. I'm sure no one in game has an issue with protecting the genuinely innocient, but now with a war if you kill the leader, everyone who keeps fighting is a -1 to your gun stat.

People in the game have  in the not so far past not protected the innocent. Because you are a paranoid lot. 

That is why such a rule was deemed necessary, at least from my observations. 

This may already be the case, but I have a suggestion for this.

Active unsponsored players always have the -1 tag on their profile, regardless of innocent or not. However, if an active unsponsored player does use the wack feature and is subsequently killed themselves, the shooter does not get punished with a -1, and instead gets the regular +1.

This makes it so that the shooter needs to be 100% sure that their target is not 'innocent' and has used their gun before. You could also keep the -1 tag on their profile after they're dead regardless of if they used their gun or not, so that the shooter would never know if that shot just gave them a +1 or -1.

This would make the shooter rely 100% on the information they've been given, whether it be a witness statement or just rumours from other players, and would add a little bit of much needed mystery back into the game.

It would also ensure that only those active unsponsoreds that are intentionally trying to kill other users are killed, as a 50/50 is probably not worth risking the -1 for.

I think this needs to be reviewed again, maybe a time of 7 days.

7 days is plenty of time to find a crew. Or even better only have the -1 when rebuild mode is on. 

I had to take a -1 to shoot a crewless person that was shooting at people that, where in a crew, why should I pay for shooting some no life gangster refusing to join a crew an shooting at people.

I think you folks are just paranoid to want it only during rebuild. 

An unsponsored person is no more a potential rogue than anyone of your  current members.
Just look at recent and past history to see this.

Most of your rogues have come from crews, not the unsponsered civilians. . . It should stay as it is  intended  to be a way that the "Little people" can keep you wallet  players in check. 

Paranoid?

Did you not see what Borat stated? He had to take a -1 when shooting at a crew less person because they were shooting at crewed members. Thats not paranoia. Thats fact.

While there will be people who want to take advantage of the protection, I do not think it should be endless. It should have a time limit. As a reminder, it was part of the old regime that wanted to kill any and all unsponsored gangsters at one point in time. Not this current regime. I think one week would suffice for this.

Let me correct myself.

I do not think it should be endless and there should be no reason why a shooter must be punished when they are defending their crew*.

You are correct it is not this regime , it was the last regime. 

A regime who I might remind you has been a ruling regime before and done the same practices. 

I am almost willing to bet that every regime that used this practice in at least the last 6 years has been that regime cycling through.  

This is why this rule  should remain as it is. 

 The odd -1 that one may need to take to take out true rogue should not even be a bother. 

As a matter of fact that particular -1 should be a badge of honor. You sacrificed a single point to protect your entire  community.  So wear that badge. 

Would it be possible to review this current feature?

Some of the unsponsored accounts actively choose not to join any of the existing families, the open space for unsponsored associates is numerous, we react very quickly to job seekers and welcome their assimilation into society.

The original reason for making this change I believe in terms of specifically targeting unwanted or uncooperative people with mal intentions is no longer pressing in my view.

I would like to second the review of this as well. I do believe that something should be offered to those that believe that they are being targeted but, being able to remain crewless and able to obtain rank of Gangster - Wiseguy while carrying a -1 tag for a unknown amount of time seems like a bit much. I've personally always felt 7 days is plenty of time. In the event of a leader being gunned down, a -1 tag should be placed on those to stop pointless bloodshed but if you happen to return fire at someone that tag is removed regardless of rank. I think a pre-determined time could be established as well for those wishing to be re-crewed as well so no one is floating around for an absurd amount of time without a home.