I'm sorry I should have elaborated. I should have the freedom to make contracts as I see fit with my money. Had trouble in the past with loan payments? Fine, you pay more interest and the penalties for defaulting are higher. As a person borrowing, you always have the right to refuse the contract. You don't have the right to to make contracts as I see fit with my money. Had trouble in the past with loan payments? Fine, you pay more interest and the penalties for defaulting are higher. According to clar at least.
Then surely you agree that people deserve the right to add as much late fee's as they like, cause its there money and they can do what they see fit with it. Im just saying, i would advise people to do hose 3 things and then this suggestion would be obsolete because they will find a decent deal, not take the first one offered, save the money themselves or get a independent person such as a staff member to look over a contract and approve it. You shouldnt be allowed to make in game contract with late fee's, would be a much easier rule...
It is my personal opinion that if I offer you a 1k loan with 1mil payback and late fees of 1k a minute and you are stupid enough to agree to it. Then you should have to pay it.
What's the justification behind these numbers? If you loan out even just 500,000 ECD to someone, you're going to want to set higher late fees that scale up with the principle of the loan, 15,000 ECD is nothing.
I agree, thus why I'll be editing this suggestion to reflect those numbers. I'll be replying to the other posts shortly.
Firstly, in your response to the "borrower responsibility argument" - What if they're desperate for a loan, and think that they can pay it back, but they don't end up paying it back, and now they're facing a mountain of late fees? That's unfair, and just stupid. Regulation DOES in fact solve the problem, as it bans predatory loans. Predatory loans are literally just made to take advantage of the player and get them banned. Unless you're asking to be scammed, or just stupid, there's no legitament reason to make these types of loans. Oh, and as far as simple rules go, sure I want to simplify them as a whole, but adding extra things couldn't hurt as well. If a person is that risky to make loans to that you'll have to go with a predatory loan, just don't loan to them. Don't be stupid. And, unless you're completely stupid, or trying to get the said player banned, there's absolutely no reason you should be making predatory loans. This won't result in a shrink in available loans, as 99% of people don't make predatory loans. Saying that isn't well thought out. Response to A: What if the said player is desperate for them, and no one else is willing to lend to them? They'll accept the loan, like Noah did. And like you said, find other loans, then why are you opposed to this? This literally hurts no one except for loan sharks. Response to B: That's more of a personal opinion than an opinion for the server as a whole. If it was, then loans wouldn't be enforced in the first place. Response to C: What if the lender refuses to do it on the forums and the borrower is desperate? Or what if they don't want to wait or go through the hassle of doing it on the forums. I don't see why normal rules shouldn't be applied to INGAME I've changed the numbers, what do you think now? Anyway, as far as the responsibility argument goes, do you really expect everyone in an MC server, especially one with smaller children to make good decisions? It's quite delusional to expect that.
I like these updated numbers as they are a bit more flexible. However, I would like to see some exemptions for smaller loans, as far as interest is concerned (not late fees). Also, I wouldn't mind more restrictive guidelines for late fees for short-term loans. As these are, in my opinion, the most likely to be defaulted on for legitimate reasons. Most long-term loans are not repaid due to laziness. Short-term loans see a variety of issues such as the player getting grounded, loss of internet for unforeseen reasons, computer issues, school assignments, sickness, family emergencies, etc. (All of these examples have actually occurred) As such, leniency on late fees in this regard should be encouraged. EDIT: 8 hours and I typed three sentences for my college assignment; this took under 5 minutes. I guess this is just where my interests lie. SECOND EDIT: I am still opposed to this overall. -1 THIRD EDIT: This is actually my fourth edit. I found a comma out of place. I tried to surreptitiously change it; I am disgusted with myself.
Obviously you do not understand what I was talking about. I never said "predatory loans" and I am not even sure what the definition of a "predatory loan" happens to be. All I was saying, was that some sort of oversight by staff limiting the penalties and interest rates WILL reduce the available loans. Just let the market govern itself. If you are a person who has a bad track record and history with loans and a lender finds that information you should expect that to have a effect on your loan rates. It is not "stupid" to loan to them if there are correct consequences in place if they default. The big lenders on here understand the risks of loaning out money and try to calculate those risks vs rewards when loans are collected. Loans are not charity for people who can't control their lotto addictions they are a means to use wealth to make more money. Also, when you say "99% of people don't make predatory loans." where are you getting that number? I have no idea what this means. It is quite simple. It is the borrower's responsibility to find the correct loan and it is the borrower's responsibility to pay the loan back on time. The Lender's responsibility is to loan out the money and to track the payments coming in. I can guarantee you that the large lenders on ECC are taking care of their responsibility, thus the onus falls to the borrower. See! I just said that without calling anyone stupid. It is possible. Blessings Sheep-
If a person is that risky that you have to make a loan with an interest rate above 100% a month, you shouldn't be lending to them in the first place. You're right, that loans aren't a charity for people who cannot control their lotto addictions - Refuse to lend to those types of people. Anyway, I'm yet to see an actual contract that's above the cap, thus me saying that it won't reduce the availability of loans. The 99% thing is not meant as a statistic, just a statement to reflect on the small number of people who make loans that exceed that amount. Picking on the opposing sides choice of words proves your inability to make an effective argument. I personally don't care about what words my opponent uses. Why? Because it's about the ARGUMENT, not the words.
Perhaps, @UnitedStates2 you could fund a bankruptcy program for users to file when they can't pay. You could cover all their debts with that fund. j/k Sorry, you don't get to decide what I do with my money or what other lenders do with their money. You do get to decide if you want to borrow from me or others. If a lender determines that it is worth the risk then who are you to say that they are not allowed to do it? To "the 99% thing", basically are you saying that the 99% claim was not true? Were you saying that it was and this is not really that big of an issue in the first place? Either way it is not useful for your argumentation. If the former is true, then it holds no weight when held to the light, and if the latter is true, then what is the point of this whole thread? To your ad hominem attack against my calling out your ad hominem references to my lack of intelligence, I think pointing out the flaw of your argument is quite an effective method of countering your attempt at argumentation. Nice try
tl:dr If the cap's are reasonable numbers, then sure! But still, just don't be stupid people. It's not that hard to see a good loan from a bad one. For now, +0
There's always limits to what you can do with your money, and this is a limit - It's a reasonable one too. Also, please name a situation where you'd give a loan that exceeds the proposed cap. People say 99% of.... all the time, it's literally just a statement reflecting a large amount of people. It's not meant to be taken literally. I think we're having a misunderstanding here - I didn't reference you, or anyone else for being "stupid", it's just a statement in general. "Stupid" is thrown around tons, that to lots of people, including me, it's become essentially meaningless. If you wish that I debate you without using the word, I will do as you wish. I'm just pointing out that you should be focusing on the argument instead of the choice of words your opponent uses - Not an ad hominem.
I believe the cap is reasonable. Anyway, people are stupid. People are people, we're all stupid in some way or another. However, there's many younger players on ECC, and players who are desperate for loans - I believe it's necessary to prevent players from owing 1mil from a 15 loan, or such. That's absurd, and shouldn't be legal.
