+1 -1 sorry I haven't or will never scam but if the person wants to get on the server he/she will work hard to do so. Placing a penalty on what will already be an outstanding fine will just make players move on. If someone wants to join again and is sorry you shouldn't penalize them, however if it's there 2nd offense yes they should be penalized.

 

The only issue I see with this is when a scammer immediately puts the money scammed into lotto and loses it then can't pay back the player or the tax. Then what, a perma-ban?

 

You could also add that iff you sell anything to the server you only get 90% of what it would normally be worth... i doubt that is possible but yeah.. lol

 

+1

 

I don't understand the logic behind this suggestion. How would an additional financial penalty help solve any problems, beside making things much harder for people trying to return to the community? They already have to pay back the full amount of the scammed money, which is quite enough for justice to be preserved.

Arguments for worse penalties generally take their basis from marginal cases. They try to establish that penalties are too relaxed by citing only particularly heinous, and repetitive, convicted scammers. This argument not only fails because it reduces to a non sequitur fallacy, but also because it attempts to justify its conclusion using exceptional cases. The argument can be written with a few syllogisms, they go like this:

Major premise: The staff's purpose is, in part, to punish behavior that is destructive to the community
Minor premise: Scamming is very destructive to the community
Conclusion: The staff must punish scammers

Major premise: Scamming is when someone takes advantage of another (violates confidence or agreements)
Minor premise: Person A had made a deal with another person with the intention of not following through with it
Conclusion: Person A is a scammer

At this point, Person A was banned. So, the next syllogism refers to the appeal process.

Major premise: The staff must punish scammers
Minor premise: Person A is a scammer
Conclusion: The staff must punish Person A during the appeal process

Reasoning such as this fails miserably. It does not actually define Person A as a scammer, but instead defines him as a person who had scammed (past tense). Once Person A decides to appeal the ban, he must be considered a person who had scammed, and not a scammer. This is because:

Major premise: Ban appeals require that the banned user fulfill his previous agreement
Minor premise: Person A seeks a ban appeal
Conclusion: Person A wants to fulfill his previous agreement

Major premise: Scamming is when someone takes advantage of another (violates confidence or agreements)
Minor premise: Person A wants to fulfill his previous agreement
Conclusion: Person A is NOT scamming (he is not a scammer)

Therefore,

Major premise: Person A is NOT scamming (he is not a scammer)
Minor premise: Staff must punish scammers
Conclusion: Staff must not punish Person A for scamming

I fail to understand why we should punish someone who is not a scammer for scamming?

 

While I respect your right to defend the scammers and trolls, please understand that the suggestion is to punish the "convicted" scammers as a detriment to their continuing along that path.
Perhaps you could take a moment and explain why there is concern about it being harder for players that scam or troll to return to the community versus the apparent lack of concern for the rule abiding players to continue to be a contributing member of the ECC community.

 

"Perhaps you could take a moment and explain why there is concern about it being harder for players that scam or troll to return to the community versus the apparent lack of concern for the rule abiding players to continue to be a contributing member [sic] of the ECC community."

That is another typical fallacy seen rather often in these debates. It is called a fallacy from false dilemma. You assume this:

Major premise: There is either concern for scammers or innocents
Minor premise: I am concerned for scammers.
Conclusion: I am not concerned for innocents.

Counter-Example​

​

Major premise: There is either a like for Coca Cola or Pepsi​

Minor premise: I am a liker of Coca Cola​

Conclusion: I am not a liker of Pepsi.​

​

This is obviously absurd. One can like BOTH Coca Cola and Pepsi; similarly, one can be concerned for both scammers and innocents. I am equally concerned for both, because justice demands it. AdmiralD​

​

​

​

​

 

Mendiboi quote: "I don't understand the logic behind this suggestion. How would an additional financial penalty help solve any problems, beside making things much harder for people trying to return to the community? They already have to pay back the full amount of the scammed money, which is quite enough for justice to be preserved."

No fallacy from false dilemma inferred here:
Statement: Don't make things harder for someone who has scammed.
Conclusion: Not everyone agrees that simply paying back is enough justice to be served, or even preserved.
BTW Mendiboi, I personally prefer Pepsi over Coke :)
Thank you for your response as I always look forward to your unique perspective on discussions.

 

AdmiralD

You clearly constructed a false dilemma when you tried to restrict my options to either being concerned for scammers or concerned for innocents. It is very logically possible that I am concerned for both parties; hence, the false dilemma.

Additionally, you've constructed argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people"). These arguments are fallacious because they conclude a proposition to be true because most people believe it to be true, regardless of whether it actually is true. What most people think to be an appropriate punishment is completely and utterly irrelevant to what actually is an appropriate punishment.

Argumentum ad Populum​

Major Premise: Single Person is just one voice
Minor Premise: The majority is composed of many unique voices supporting the same thing.
Conclusion: Majority opinion is more likely to correct, and therefore should be trusted.

Counter-Example​

​

Major Premise: Single Person thinks the world is roughly spherical.​

Mino Premise: Everyone else thinks the world is flat.​

Conclusion: The world is flat, because the beliefs of the entire global population are more likely to be correct.​

​

This reduces to absurdity, because the world is not flat. If you substitute the flat world nonsense with ECC's punishment debate, then it will also reduce to absurdity. Popular beliefs are irrelevant to logical discourse.​

 

I feel like you are now cherry picking and getting off subject in a way that will derail this thread. Why don't we all just stop questioning each others side in this and post about how to better form the suggestion, or if we don't want it at all? AndrewKM himself has stated that he tries to get at least 75% of the people to be happy with decisions so why not use that same method here to see if ECC has a majority that think some this idea should be implemented in some form?
I don't understand the concern of others that this rule will deter scammers from coming back to the community. Isn't that a good thing? If we implemented a tax penalty, or an added fine to the amount the scammer took it would discourage scammers from scamming in the first place with so much to lose. We could make this penalty apply to only non first time offenders and show them that repeated breaking of rules comes with harsher consequences. If the repeat offender is discouraged from coming back to their own actions then I am more than okay with that. If they take on the harsher punishment and it takes even more for them to rejoin the community this time then I feel like they will learn more. Also it will weed out less dedicated members from coming back who would be more likely to yet again break the rules and risk a perma ban in my opinon.

 

domz1993

Read my posts. I'm not derailing, or attempting to derail, anything. I constructed a very good case against this suggestion. And, I defended that case against multiple accounts of criticism.

 

lurkblader

"Convicted crime should be punished by their action, and those punishment isn't enough for current system"

That is called an argument, and not a fact. Which means that I have a duty to explain why it is either true or why it is false. In this case, I clearly showed why it is false.

Whether you, in your point of view, accept my proof is irrelevant. It is not my duty to convince people of the truth; but rather, it is my duty to at least put the truth out there.

" if they give back the money to victim, it seems like you are just considering them as non-criminal, or non-scammer, like conversion or transformation or something, but which isn't."

Here is an example. I have a 4.0 College GPA, but I've unfortunately received less than an A on an exam before. Of course this exam is in my history, but would it be a good argument to define me as a less-than-A student? Of course not, that would be stupid. I've fixed the poor grade through hard work; and therefore, I am not defined by that poor grade. The same is true for convicted criminals; at least, for the criminals who right their past wrongdoing.

 

You actually have proven the point of this thread in my humble opinion. You worked to fix the grade and all that is being asked is that those that have done wrong work to "right their past wrongdoing"
I must also agree with Lurk that you have really not provided a good case for objection and really have not defended it in the least.
Perhaps if you would speak in simpler English that most would understand, your points could be well made.
Your examples have nothing to do with the issue at hand and are the reason you are being called out as trying to derail the thread.
I am very proud of you for working hard to improve your grade as it shows your commitment to keeping your grade average! I think that most on this thread would love to see those that attempt to scam work just as hard to show their commitment to being a productive player on ECC.
Not sure if this has been noticed by everyone on this thread but Andrew, Revan, and many other staff are starting to be much more proactive with punishments regarding spammers and trolls. Maybe not a direct connection to this thread, however, it does show that we are listened to and appreciated for our views when presented rationally.

 

AdmiralD

You missed the point on the analogy. The point I established was that records do not define present state. This is basic legal theory.

I will post my syllogisms again, just to cite that my position is VERY defended:

If you can't show that my reasoning is illogical, then you fail to show that your position is rational.

btw, good luck studying any kind of philosophy without having to read examples or thought experiments. Without simplified real-world examples, no one would ever be able to communicate abstract ideas.

 

Thank you for clarifying your point! I really wished you would have just said this from the beginning.

lurkblader - Just wanted to share this with you as I think it will clarify what happened to bring all of this on.

This is your original suggestion:

Minecraft Name: lurkblader (I want to mention that you do quite well communicating in English especially since it is not your first language}

Suggestion: Give scammer 10% "tax penalty"(fine) to server. Temp-ban isn't enough punishment.

What Mendiboi needs it to say is:

Give "those that scam"... His point was simply that they should not be thought of as "scammers" - only "those that scam"

See how simple everything can be? If only we would have understood this from the beginning! :)

 

AdmiralD

Those that had scammed*

This suggestion reduces to absurdity if we recognize that people who appeal bans are not active scammers, because why should staff punish people who are not active criminals? If staff can punish people under this rationale, then why not enact fines against everyone who'd successfully appealed a ban?