That's predatory, lol. Short of fastbreaking, there's literally no way to make 50k/hour. As for the 100k due in a day, people don't spend that much time working. If they're able to make that much money and work that long, they won't take loans in the first place.
Well I was thinking more you know you have money coming in (from loans or sportsbook or something) I realized this wasn't common so I changed it to a day. Personally I think 50k with 100k in a day is decently high but isnt really predatory enough to be restricted by this suggestion. Its not hard to make 100k in a day to pay it off either. I think this is a hard suggestion to implement as what would be predatory is based on not just the amount and time but also how much said user taking the loan as well as other factors. For example, if I loan a builder 50k with 100k due at the end of the day, it seems likely this is predatory as the vast majority of builders do not have the ability to make 100k/day. However, if I was to take a 50k loan for something I really needed (whatever it may be) with 100k due at the end of the day, I dont think it would be predatory. I disagree about 100k/day. Im not sure (I obviously dont have server logs) but I would think that quite a few people make 100k/day. I know I have probably a couple days a month where I just grind mining world with an eff7 for over 100k and im very far from the top earners on the server. Also, a reason could come up where you just really needed a loan, some kind of situation came up where you had to pay someone and didn't have the cash immediately or something. Basically, if this was to be a rule I feel it would need to reflect more upon users intentions for giving a loan and not just amounts given. - On a side note I have given up on convincing you that this suggestion is a bad idea, it is clear that we will never agree, so I am instead offering my opinion on the terms for what is considered a predatory loan.
Due to such high amounts of confusion with loan courtesy and exploitation... I think I'll create a tutorial after work outlining loan procedures and how to take "reasonable" loans. Ill focus this towards new players and borrowers with some tips for lenders. Perhaps we don't need rules, just guidelines. As staff enforce anti-predatory rules anyway Home in one hour will start then.
You do have something to hide, though. Everyone does. Weak encryption/no encryption has a victim and it's YOU. If it's open for anyone, it's just as open for anyone else. That's all your personal, financial and other information available for everyone. As a Computer Science major focusing on cybersecurity I find your analogy horrific.
I'm fully aware everyone has something to hide and that encryption is paramount in today's society. My point was comparing the above argument I made to this one: There are reasons to oppose this, even if you're not a loan shark. The same way in which everyone has reasons to support encryption, even if they have nothing to hide in the sense that many governments try to portrait things. Frankly I would prefer it if people would focus on my argument directly targeting the suggestion...
Well, if you really do want us to focus on your argument, very well then. Now, let's start with your key statement; Firstly, I do have something to hide. My personal and financial information, banking statements, and passwords from normal people! When weakening encryption, you also make it easier for normal people to steal your personal and financial information. If anything, we need more encryption, not less, to protect against identity theft and such. So that makes your "nothing to hide" argument invalid, as I don't, and I certainly think you don't, want people stealing your personal and financial information. It doesn't just have to do with government surveillance. That's why I find your analogy so horrific. Now, as I've said, there's no reason to oppose this unless you're a loan shark or opposed to any form of regulation for some reason. This doesn't breach anybody's right to privacy, nor can I see any ways this rule affects you, unless you're a loan shark. If this suggestion was implemented, I'm not sure how it'd apply to my day-to-day playing time on ECC either, lol.
United was saying "only people who want to exploit others are harmed by this" That's not even remotely analogous to whatever point you're trying to make
Let's see, it may be cold outside, most people don't want random people inside their house, people can literally trash and do shit with your house, among many, many other things. Anyway, let's not use strawman arguments.
Nope, my very first post was imo a thought out response to your suggestion, your statement in reply was stupid so I made an equally stupid one in return. Tbh I don't care enough to start an argument.
How was it stupid though? If it's my post was that stupid, and yours was that thought out, you'd be able to reply to my response easily. You're now just resorting to making condescending statements. And you generally have lost when you resort to making condescending statements alone instead of upholding your argument. GG.
I keep getting alerts for this, and I think, "Maybe constructive dialog has been added." Never the case, it seems. If you don't like this, please make a strong point or just -1 and leave.
