Well, the users do end up with their money, right?
If the other user got banned, they would not get money at all.

 

The punishments are enforced? Why would a user not get the chance to defend themselves? Also mods don't babysit, they can play the game. They signed up to be a mod, and they knew what it would take.

 

I'm confused... They're not breaching contract if they're paying the person back, right? Sure, it might be a little late, but still, they're getting the money back.

I'd say most of the time, it has to do with player mistakes such as IRL circumstances preventing them from paying - we should absolutely never be punishing players for circumstances out of their control, such as not being available for that day or having a different time zone than the other player. It's very unfair to punish these players, as it's not their fault that they couldn't pay.

Staff volunteer themselves to deal with issues between players like that - Being a moderating isn't just about having fun, it's about helping the server and having it properly function.

In the end, this is pointless and would just punish players for circumstances out of their control.

-1

 

It should only be a seen as a problem when people consistently do it (like itzxtremegaming and arisenbatman)

 

No that aren't. A breach of contract occurs THE MOMENT it is breached. At this time once a complaint is issued get have 24 hours to say "oh yea I have money" and basically gets a free extension despite breaching the contract and breaking rules. I've come across this issue more than once... It irks me...
There needs to be a system where if a contract is breached it will actually be punished and escaillated if the user does it more than once.

Can we not slander users?

 

These most often happen from miscommunication or other uncontrollable issues rather than user negligence. I, the mods, and most other players on here would rather see conflicts resolved than have players banned.

 

Sure. But who should we support? People that give loans and help new players doing so? Or the people that fail to hold their and of the bargain? I know who my vote is for.

I'd love to see even something like a base 15k fine or something, for example for any breach of contract.

 

Well I guess that is true. However there are many instances where it is impossible to pay the second it happens. Life is all about consensus. Maybe decrease the time limit to 10 or 12 hours? It isn't possible or fair to get rid of the chance to explain that school happens from such and such time and I will pay when i get home, or you weren't on when I was, could you set up a sign? ECT.

 

Right, but then it is then the responsibility of them to make other arrangements for pay. If none are possible it is their responsibility, nobody else's. This concept has been well established among many precendents but rather terribly implemented.

This would need to be a case by case basis. If the agreement was to just /pay and the receiver of the money was never on, sure, no fine is needed. It's just a misunderstanding.
If there was a sign you could have easilly warped to or knew the coords of it's nobody's fault but your own you did not pay.
If you have school issues that is more of your fault than the person giving you the loan, also your responsibility.

If were were to implement something like this suggestion we would need either very detailed guidelines, allow staff to determine what is needed and when, or a bit of both.

 

Isn't slander if it's a true fact. ;)

 

It's an opinion. constistantly is a matter of opinion, and regardless, what did that parenthesis accomplish?

 

I guess you do have a point here, however he was simply giving examples - you can look at those specific examples if you want to see how he thinks it should be implemented and what cases it should concern.

 

I suppose I misinterperated. Sorry @kukelekuuk00

 

I fundamentally agree with you, @CrazySwagMaster1. Everything you say is dead on because it should lay completely on the shoulders of the borrower and not the lender according to contract, no excuses. And also I have seen that in any case where the debtor makes an attempt to contact the loaner about the situation and work out a new timeline, the loaner is almost always happy to renegotiate. Most of the complaints aren't made until a good amount of time has passed and the user has failed to respond to any contact. So most of the time, there isn't a good excuse by the time it hits the complaint forum.

However I don't think it is a reasonable thing to actually enforce. This is because we are all talking about something that is a game, a recreation, and comes secondary to any real life event of any seriousness. And because if it was enforced it would likely only end in many of the lenders never seeing a dime back of their money when a more lenient system would likely get them back at least some or all, better late than never. And like the other users say, real life can absolutely legitimately rear it's head up and lead to understandable delays. It would be too harsh in some circumstances.

I think it would be very interesting and more fair if ECC could implement a system that worked a lot like the credit bureaus do in real life. This way repeat offenders would be punished but people who make efforts to fix it are given further chances to repair their "credit". It could work as a starting score with new users that improved with every timely debt repaid, worsened for every time a complaint or mod was involved to nanny the situation to repair. And could even be improved by time passing and efforts to pay old delinquent debts down.

This would mean users with bad credit would not be totally banned from the server, but future lenders would be able to identify them as not someone to lend to. It also would help lenders identify users who were "borrowing from peter to pay paul", so to say.

But I am too new a user to know if that's really a good idea or seriously suggest it. Just a thought I've had.

 

That's why I said consensus. We need both. Everything is case by case.