In Game Name: Revanrose6What part of EcoCityCraft is this suggestion for: Network WideShort title for your suggestion: Lottery BanWhat are you suggesting: When a player gets unbanned for scamming someone, they should be lottery banned until such a time that their debt is repaid at which point, they should have to appeal their lottery ban like you appeal a mute or anything else.Why is this a good addition for EcoCityCraft?: We have a scamming problem. We have always had a scamming problem. If a player is indebted to another player and has already proven themselves incapable of paying it off normally, banning them from the Lottery will reduce the ways that they could waste the money. The fact is a lot of scammers have lottery addictions and their continued ability to use the lotto just extends the rest of our misery while we wait for them to get their crap together.Other information: I understand this would lower the number of people who are lottoing at times, but I don't think that the lottery promotion should take precedence over player's happiness. There are several people on ECC currently who owe several million to people and it would be bad for the players they owe money to, if they started missing payments again cause the lotto might make them rich faster. I believe lotto is a privilege not a right.Plugin or custom addition: Just take the permissions plugin and create a group called 'lotto ban' that takes precedence over the regular player ranks and can inherit everything, however, removes the permission for lotto specifically. You can make a simple /lottoban (so and so) command, and give it to GA+ (since they handle scam appeals). Then when they appeal, a lotto ban gets slapped. When they appeal have /lottounban or whatever and rock on.One suggestion per form: I Understand.
The difference is that someone is profiting off the money in casino's (the house) while in the lottery case, a portion of it is being sucked into the void. Aka andrews wallet.
+1 in theory, it'd always be better for people to get their money back. However I feel they'll still go waste it at a casino, or probs even pay another user to lotto for them.
As much as I like the concept of a lotto ban, I don’t see the point. It is the persons responsibility to show resistance and not lotto, we shouldn’t be offering services to make their lives easier. Let alone it still brings into question Casinos and Sportsbook, sure you could do the same for sportsbook, but you can’t ban them from a casino. The payment plans outlined for users who have been banned are often quite generous, they don’t need any extra assistance. Also I agree that since they can gamble anyways may aswell let some money be taken out of the server.
I see why this is a good suggestion, but I don’t think lotto bans is a good idea. Sportsbook, yes, but banning lotto won’t magically fix people who owe loans
Kinda saying the same as most of the other players here. While it would stop these players from lottoing, they could as easily gamble their money in other ways, such as casinos, and sportsbook. Even if we get rid of these options, they will still go out of their way to gamble their money. Maybe these players should do the thing that they said in their ban appeal, prove to us that "they have changed, and want to give back to the community by paying off their loan" If you are responsible enough to take out a loan, you should be able to do so without being spoon fed with a lotto ban. if you gave this person a loan, tell them in their new contract that any form of gambling is a instant breach of contract.
Saying "we shouldn't take away a method that people use to screw over people they owe loan money to because they can just go lose the money elsewhere" is equivalent to saying 'we shouldn't ban crack because people will just go use meth instead and the problem will still exist." This thought process solves nothing and is nothing more than advocating for the status quo.
I can't fucking believe I'm about to say this. I agree with wolfspy7. But I know why neither of those can be done. I feel dirty now. +1
In the grand scheme of things, you're correct, there's no difference. So why implement this if there's no difference.
Although this is a good idea, in principle I have to disagree. I think people should have a choice on how to use their money even if it should result in them getting banned for scamming. It's their choice and they will face the consequences.
I'm a solid -1 Yea, someone who is unbanned for scamming and then comes on and lotto and gambles is a sucky situation, but if they dont get it paid, they get banned. If its not lotto, itll be something else that we just can't enforce. In a similar idea to what ike said, but a different example: we can ban a drug but people will still get their hands on it somehow. If this is implemented then there'll be shouts for "regular user" lotto bans to avoid lotto, and that's just something thats been denied countless times in the past...
Has been requested in the past. This would require specific groups to be made via permissions, which will fall into weight prioritization issues. Custom permissions for single users will never be given. Same goes for the forum. Simply put, I’m not willing to put such overhaul work into something that won’t solve a thing. A gambler will always find a way to gamble. Whether it’s via alts, friends, etc.