@Anokfero I know in-depth of your personal situation, as I was one who also got scammed by the same player. I completely know how you feel :(

 

There's a good reason why I have never done payment plans, very little in-game trading, and extremely minimal trading/buying/sales with USD in the last eight years... And especially on ECC. I have only done one contract (and yes, I did my research), and it did not work out. Even though I could get it voided and neither party lost anything, I didn't even like the process of trying to get it voided. As well, seeing contracts being handled since they were introduced, I never liked the process. They are not reliable and they honestly do not guarantee much protection. I want my end of the deal, not a user banned. -.-

Although I agree that it is user responsibility to do a background check on a user before "signing" any contracts... I do agree that many broken contracts and "the user was banned and now I don't get my end of the deal" type of situations are handled as, "your fault. Can't help." (Sorry, but this has happened to me before and I've done hours of research! Thanks, but no thanks. :s)

Honestly, there are plenty of ways to handle contracts better (or more "fairly" for the users who actually contribute to and support ECC). Why those methods are not even being tested, I do not know why. :/ People cannot honestly say some of the methods - or aspects of those methods - "cannot work, at all, period" until they are tested. That goes for everything. Test, test, test. Trial periods. Why do things have to be permanent once implemented? Why is testing rarely used (especially by the community and actual server)?

Anyway, I'm sorry you are out money, Anok. :c I've always stuck with only gifting people who have proved themselves "worthy"/deserving, or doing a lot of research and seriously crossing my fingers - even when I've only had good experiences prior. Often I prefer to directly spend my money on ECC for things like the forums/graphics/etc, like you mentioned in one of your posts.

(My post isn't really in direct reply to anything.. sorry if it's scatter-brained.)

 

I'm confused. I'm pretty sure this issue was covered in a post by Andrew. Payment Plans and Donation situations involving a kind of trad was stated to be "At the risk of the parties involved." If you put your hand in a fire it is obvious that if you don't be careful you're going to get burnt. Does that mean if you take the risk even when warned but still burn yourself you're going to try and ream whoever put the fire there? Seems like re-treading the words "At parties risk" and "Not supported but not against the rules" have been absolutely useless to warn people that it probably isn't the best idea to engage in. I'm not sure how many times Andrew will have to post those exact words over and over but they seem pretty straightforward to me. Not everyone is a jerk like that but when you use real money to help someone with digital (fake) money you're playing Russian Roulette. Eventually you find someone who's centered on that kind of BS and catch the bullet.

 

Sorry.

 

If people listened to Andrew's 'advice'/word, he would end up losing a lot of money for the server. Unfortunate as it is, and as true as what Andrew says is, if everyone suddenly became paranoid or stop dealing with people... There would be a huge loss of money. I mean, look at all the scammers who get donation features but do not pay ECD to a user. Andrew makes money, the scammer is happy and gets unbanned at some point, and the donator is unhappy. Donator keeps trying, because they are trying to make a living on the game, too, and they want to support Andrew. It's a horrible cycle.

 

I agree thoroughly and am not saying don't do it but but even if you don't concentrate on having fun but do know that it is a possablity you will get hosed on a deal. Happens IRL all the time and as much as I'd like to grab the nearest 2x4 and start beaten the person I just have to grunt, groan and fume and either try and help people or tell them no more.

 

@Anokfero Great discussion, and all have valid statements. It seems like everyone has come to the consensus that, while payment plans pose certain unavoidable risks to the players involved, there are issues that the server owner and and the moderators just cannot take full responsibility for. Like some users have mentioned, the amount of users requesting refunds for unfulfilled payment contracts would likely be dozens, maybe even hundreds. Asserting liability for each of these contracts would be critically detrimental to the server's livelihood, its operating cash flows. Peer to Peer contracts are just that - agreements between two players, not between players and the server. Moderator approval for contracts is merely a sanction that governs the legality of the agreement to the extent that such contracts cannot be personally accounted for by the server operators.

Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk

 

It was met. The intended purpose was to donate "in the name" of a particular individual. Which you did. End of purpose.

Just because the recipient didn't do what you expected, doesn't mean that you didn't mean to donate on their behalf.

It makes no difference in regards to donations in who donates, only the name that was used to apply the donation to. That is one of reasons the person who pays for the donation doesn't get "the recognition". I think you are misunderstanding this vital part.

 

Just wondering, can you shed some light on these different methods? :)

 

Spoiler

These are very general methods (more on the handling of complaints on broken contracts), not exactly pertaining to Anok's specific scenario. However, these methods can always be adapted. (As well, usually a banned user in the middle of a contract for features often gets banned for, you know... scamming other people... So there are ties. Punishments and how things are handled usually build up based on past and current related felon history. And contracts have their own specific methods (writing, approval, etc), which have been discussed far less, but could make a difference as well.)

- Actual investigations (there is very little right now, if any): Seeing where users put their money, who they send it to, etc. It is possible, but Andrew has to actually allow GAs to do it. This is in the case of a scammer being on the ECD-payment end.

* Investigations also apply to things like Star tools or other "big-ticket" scams. It is more than possible to find lost valuables and money.​

- Forcefully removing money from a balance (or find it via the above method). Negative balances seem like a far better punishment than any ban, and actually get a point across and mean serious business. However, I know there are bugs with it... Not sure why those cannot be fixed, though. I'm not apart of the plugin/development/etc. community(s).

* Things like Star tools can be forcefully removed, too.​

- As places and people have said in the past three years, "donators get more [leniency], love, and support." I am not sure why the donators who "have bad luck" (the other party gets banned) or are scammed are the ones who never get what they want. (Seems like the opposite of what people are told about donators being supported/loved more for their help to the server.)

Spoiler

This is what I have seen time, and time, and time again... Although not always true, it happens too often. The party that actually is supporting the server has the hardest time, and often never gets their end of the deal, or it takes a long time. Which, in my honest opinion, is not right. The person who gets the feature can use it the entire time they are "goofing off"/trying to pay the user back/etc. They lose less - time and resources.

>Two(+) users make a contract for features
>Party buying feature either scams or gets banned

a1 >Party that scams gets banned, and sometimes put on a new payment plan
a2 >Party that scams gets unbanned, maybe starts paying, but often gets banned again
a3 >Party that scams eventually has been banned and/or not paying for long enough that no one cares anymore
a4 >Party that scams often gets unbanned a couple of months later (if not already unbanned) and never pays/never has to pay
a5 >Party that scams is happy and got what they wanted - they "win"; party that donates gets very little, and often nothing, from their end of the deal - they "lose"

b1 >Party that gets banned stays banned for a month, a few, or permanently; party that donates does not get their end of the deal - they "lose"
b2 >Party that gets banned eventually gets unbanned; party that donates complains again and either gets a) "nothing can be done / that is old / whatever" or b) party that was banned begins paying the party that donates back or pays back - but very slowly - and party that donates partially "loses"
b2.2 >Party that gets banned eventually gets unbanned; they forget to pay, claim to be "busy" and rarely gets on, and someday comes back fully active, but staying quiet - they "win" and party that donates [partially] "loses"

Often they are told, "It's your fault - do your research" even when it is not their fault. Being apathetic and/or shrugging off the people who actually send over real money to support the server only discourages them from donating further, causes unhappy users like Anok, and gives the impression that Staff will not and/or can not help them (when they can, if given the commands and approval).

There are many other servers who treat their donators a lot better. I am not saying that ECC Staff treats donators badly, but they do not treat them with more respect/caring; within their own power/authority or not. So although this is not really a "method," it is an attitude/ways things are handled. Being kind and not lumping everyone in the same boat can make a big difference psychologically.

There are many other minor and "major" methods, courses of action, attitudes, and so on that can be done. These are just the ones that I personally find the most "important"/logical. I believe in General and in Suggestions there are various threads, but the majority are locked and shot down. :/

My post is a bit off-topic (I think?), so it is in a spoiler. :S Sorry.

 

I understand we may be at an impasse, and we may have to agree to disagree. I just wanted to say, I understand your view, and I see where you are coming from. I just want to clarify why I disagree.

Taking your example to an extreme:

I once donated 85k to a resident to purchase a town. I expected to be paid back in a timely fashion. He was later permabanned. Since I liken this to the same type of "failure of service", does that mean you are suggesting I should be able to dictate whose town that now becomes?

Why not?

I gave a player something, just as you did. I gave them money for a town, you gave them a donation. They did not pay you what you expected and got banned. I did not get what I expected and they got banned. You think you should be able to "re-allocate" that donation. I should be able to "re-allocate" that town.

If you think I should be able to name a new original owner... well, even I didn't think you would choose this one.

 

Honestly, I'll walk away unless the person dealing with me pays up first, or I know the person.

 

Let's closer look at why certain players require this type of Payment plan service on ECC?

Mostly the players who request features in exchange for in-game currency most likely do not have access to either a credit card or one of the preferred payment systems supported by the server. This can be due to international banking processes, geographically restricted or whatever, as I think in most cases young players who can not get their parents to swipe their plastic look at a payment-plan as a quick fix to a potential long term labour issue.

Now from a logical point of view, many of these younger players are possibly naive to the responsibility they are expected to assume in such an agreement, not that this is a bad thing, as it can afford them a learning opportunity, provided there are consequences associated with breaking any agreements. As this is difficult to enforce on the server currently, the other positive learning process that they can benefit from, would be the 'Work to Earn' approach. This has been mentioned a few times by those who insist on upfront payment in full.

If you really want the perks, work for them, save up and 'buy' them when you can afford them. patience can be a psychological nightmare for both young and old. Being somewhat old school, the reward is always so much sweeter when one can walk away from a 'cash' deal, and not having the worry of 'owing' for something constantly picking away on the sub conscience.

**Climbs off soap box**

 

I think being spurned by society, (being banned by ECC), is a punishment. This is comapred to being placed in jail in IRL because the felon is being separated from society/ECC. If they wish to rejoin society/ECC, they must appeal and show remorse. Once this happens, the staff/judge, then decides on what reparations need to be made, and the felon can then become a productive member once again.

To say that scammers and the such are not punished for what they do, is a gross mischaracter in my opinion. You may think they are not punished enough, but that is a different stance than saying they aren't punished at all.

ECC only can do so much. The staff can't go to the person's house and take away their cellphone for a week, or repossess their car/bike/whatever. Banning is the harshest thing we have, and if the harshest thing we have is not a punishment in your eyes, then I don't know where you want ECC to go from there.

 

I understand that it sucks you were taken advantage of. But again it was posted that they were at your risk which means no matter how disgruntled you are they've already stated their lack of support on this subject though you went through with it anyways. ECC, Andrew, that rock over there are not responsible. You took the risk, got screwed and whether or not you feel one way or another matters not. I keep seeing this same thing IRL. One person/group doesn't like something no matter what the law says so they keep poking and groaning and grunting about how unfair it is. It builds such a public spectacle and "groupie" base that the laws are changed for one persons joy. Absolute insanity. It doesn't mean you can't vent about it and no you don't have to quiver in fear (really? all that over fake money you had no physical collateral for anyway?) but if you think the world is sunshine, unicorns and nose glitter sorry but I have something to tell you: It ain't. Not everyone is decent and if it was a private trade no one else can be blamed but the person who went ahead and got hosed anyway. Uff da...

 

@Anokfero Generally, perma-bans nowadays are for serious trolls that Andrew had time to look into, donation fraud (kids stealing their parents credit cards and parents finding out, usually), and - once in a blue moon - a perma-ban for a scammer who scams millions of ECD/hundreds of USD. Sometimes there are perma-bans for other things, like extreme exploit abuse, very consistent rule breakers, etc. I don't know how often grief becomes perma-ban anymore. :/

However, there are very few permanent perma-bans now... Generally a perma-ban ends up lasting only ~3-6 months (assuming there are/were appeals) and people get unbanned. There are only a couple handfuls of perma-ban cases that have absolutely zero chance at appealing and getting unbanned.