Intention is important and is therefore the key to my argument. By appealing a ban, the person appealing is intending to pay back the scammed money, and is therefore not in the process of scamming. Why punish someone who is not scamming? In the case of the jewelry theft, if the jewels are given back, then the crime is void. It is simple and the same for ECC. It is just shear stupidity to punish people for resolving conflict. In the case of the murderer, you have to separate between murder that fails, and a potential murderer who decides not to murder. If a murder fails, but the murderer still has the intention of murdering, then he can be prosecuted. But, if the murderer decides not to murder—changes his intention—then he cannot be prosecuted. I use long explanations to do something called justification. If I was just to state my conclusion, then no one would have any reason to believe it. So, I have to explain exactly, using very precise language, why my conclusion is logically correct. I'm sorry if it seems like this process is unnecessary, but when you get into high level arguments, then you'll see that just yelling conclusions at each other is unproductive. lurkblader Also, what people vote for is irrelevant.
Mendiboi OK I am now little bit tired, that I have a feeling that this will go forever like parallel lines with you, if I point out and counter you back on what you are saying, too agressively. I still have tons of things on what you just said about high level arguments because I am also educated, but I am gonna try to shorten up. Cuz I don't even want to keep go on and on and on and on for endless pointless battle here. It starts to feel like it's waste of my effort, talking to a wall. So I will try my best to shorten up as possible, but I don't know. I can't guarantee. I am just gonna point out that, I was indeed saying about the case that "fails" the murder for some environmental or some 3rd person interfere situation reason, not "changing" mind at final moment for murder. And I do know the difference between them, and court decides differently. The only point that you have to think, they get "prosecuted" just like you stated. And about Jewel, I am not sure about U.S. State law, but if he didn't volunteerly gave back the whole thing, but more like forcefully got took it away from police when he was running away, and eventually got captured and arrested, the crime that he made doesn't fade away. I don't know for sure in U.S. law, just by sercuring the jewel back in process of arresting thief, might make him go away freely, but not in my country. and so as many other countries in the world. Not all country let that thief go away freely without any kinda punishment. And for comparing to "ban appeal", posting ban appeal can't be same as volunteerly giving back, but more like there is a candy reward for them, that's allowing them to "comback to server". So it's more like half-forced arrest. And even though in my country, if thieves give back volunteerly, he is still not getting away from punishment of his crime action. And... I honestly laughed at your entire first paragraph.. Intention of giving back the money is to "comeback to server". Who said anything about, that ban appealing action is "process of scam"? Ofcourse that's not the "process of scam", but like "process of making up his faults to comeback", but what I am saying is "making up" for exact amount that he scammed isn't enough, but needs extra financial punishment for what he has done "IN PAST"(Not saying it is happening now dude). Because he gave extreme stress and losing money for while for victim. You said "Why punish someone who is not scamming?".. lol,. I will ask you back. "Why not punish someone who scammed in past?" Giving back the money isn't "punishment". It's like you said, "resolving conflict", to fix it to right way. And ofcourse that's mandatory thing if someone ban appeals. But this time, if he does it again in 2nd time, he should be punished for his "action", not just resolving the conflict to make it right. If you used your way of dat "High Class" explanation in a right way, with much logic that makes sense, I would've definitely gave credit on you my friend, but you just didn't. All you did was making it sound weird and draggy on keep pointing out that "they are not scammer" when everybody knows what I meant by saying "scammer". And that makes it you look more poor. Don't underestimate my debate skill in high class form. I surely know how to make an discussion and debate especially in my 1st language, and I have done it tons of time. Ah.. fail.. I try to shorten things up, cuz I am now getting sick of this, but I think I failed to shorten up to end this whole thing. Alright whatever you say next time, I might not respond cuz I am tired. I can go on forever like this keep countering back to you, but it's just that I don't want to spend any more private time on this useless, pointless, un-beneficial effort. Farewell, Mendiboi. Good luck on your private debate life.
Mendiboi stated: Intention is important and is therefore the key to my argument. By appealing a ban, the person appealing is intending to pay back the scammed money, and is therefore not in the process of scamming. Why punish someone who is not scamming? Lurk was not saying to punish someone in the process of scamming. It has been very clearly stated to punish someone who has scammed (no matter how "*Absurd" it is to you. They are appealing the ban for scamming simply because they want to have access to the server once again. The intention is therefore completely irrelevant. In fact, many appeal just to scam again as is proven by the bans themselves. Mendiboi stated: In the case of the jewelry theft, if the jewels are given back, then the crime is void. It is simple and the same for ECC. It is just shear stupidity to punish people for resolving conflict. I am not sure which country you are from and am not 100% familiar with Canadian law but do believe that the crime of stealing jewelry would most certainly be punishable. Yes, even if the jewelry is returned. Mendiboi Stated: In the case of the murderer, you have to separate between murder that fails, and a potential murderer who decides not to murder. If a murder fails, but the murderer still has the intention of murdering, then he can be prosecuted. But, if the murderer decides not to murder—changes his intention—then he cannot be prosecuted. I agree completely with this statement Mendiboi. It is exactly the same as what Lurk has suggested - A player thinking of scamming should not be punished - Only "one who has scammed" should be punished. Mendiboi Stated: I use long explanations to do something called justification. If I was just to state my conclusion, then no one would have any reason to believe it. So, I have to explain exactly, using very precise language, why my conclusion is logically correct. I'm sorry if it seems like this process is unnecessary, but when you get into high level arguments, then you'll see that just yelling conclusions at each other is unproductive. lurkblader As shown above in the example of the murderer, you have proven exactly what Lurk had suggested. Thank you for solving this finally.
I love you AdmiralD.. Thanks once again for your effort of mediation between him and me. I think you are helping a lot to clear out all the statements and main points in clean and neat way, in neutral position. Anyway, now I am done with this. No matter what he is saying back again, I feel like it's time to move on and not care about this discussion or it will be endless thing. I am done mendi. Bye. And I am always welcoming the new comments from new player. Besides this long and boring argument, if any other players wanna share about how you think of this suggestion, please feel free to reply. I really want this suggestion to be happened.
Well, I've been avoiding throwing my hat into this argument, but, it does seem to be going on quite a while. So here is my thought. A 10% additional tax will injure the scammers and those scammed. No one will really win in the end. Before I explain my argument I want to say something. Even in real life, at least in America, we often times need to be 'tough on crime.' That is not because it is best for the community. That is not because it is best for the criminals or the victims. Our tough on crime stance generally stems from the fact that people believe that if you are not tough on crime then you are unAmerican. Yet, there are better programs then just tossing people in prison or fining them massive fines. In real life, we often have criminals who return to criminal behavior because they cannot pay off the governmental fees/fines. They have no choice. Crime is the only life they knew. Their life was interrupted and they spent time surrounded by criminals. Then we release them with a stigma on their name, no job, no money, and a ton of fines. Does that sound familiar? Essentially what you are saying is that we need to give these people even MORE to repay. A lot of the severe cases are barely even paying off the amount they already have due. At first it seems simplistic/small. We have a player who scams 100k and thus they now need to make 110k. But what about when the numbers get bigger? Those players who want to be repaid are going to have a harder time getting repaid if they are getting fined on top of it. Honestly, the real answer is in the opposite direction. The real answer is HELPING the scammers. I know, this is going to sound terribly anti productive. The fact is, I have had scammers who I gave, upon their return, the ability to make the money needed. And they did it. I gave them access to my farm and they repaid their debts. It wouldn't be easy, but honestly we would have significantly more progress if we stopped our CONSTANT persecution of them and realized that they are people. And those people are misguided. Everyone has a moment in their life when they do stupid things. That time comes more often then not when they are kids and most of our users, are kids. So, let me make my stance on this clear at the moment: I do not support scamming. I do not agree with it nor do I think it is right. I do, however, feel that we need to stop our witch hunts. I want to help the players and the community. I feel that the best way of doing that does not include adding more to their plates. Well, thats my opinion. I hope it made sense and I'm willing to chat about it. Revan
Well said Revan! This makes perfect sense. I will say that I am not nearly as compassionate as you are on repeat offenders. I feel they have been thru the ban process and should have read the rules and could even be made to write in their own words what they did and how if affects other users like is being done on many other ban appeals currently. Speaking of that, I would like to say again that I appreciate every staff member and all the work they put into keeping this server running smooth so that we can have a great playing experience. While this suggestion may not be approved, I do feel that these discussions have been heard and the results can be seen in the ban/complaint section. I totally agree with helping out rather than shunning banned players, however, I have not been very tolerant of repeat offenders. I have offered free apartments, plots with access to farms, and I offer to buy materials at above server prices as well. You do make me realize I should reach out more and I commit to doing that starting now.
-1 to the 10% penalty +1 to some other punishment on scammers people need to be more aware. i am banned right now for scamming only reason i did it is cause the system sucks my eff 7 was scammed and he gets off free most "Trusted players" have probably scammed before i know a few people but id rather not mention any names i agree with lurkblader that something needs to change Giant_leader is a perfect example of the failed system he scammed countless times and got off the hook when a complaint was made the system atm is scam someone wait it out if they have sufficient evidence pay them back if they dont well woo big score. i think a 10% tax would only harm the chances of scammers appealing. ecc is a game most people are lucky if the scammer even appeals and thats without a tax. adding a penalty tax may punish users but thats if they appeal. there is basicly two kinds of scammers the ones who scam for money wait for complaint with proper evidence then pay back or the ones who have given up and just scam to "go out with a bang" -1 to penalty tax but there needs to be some other way to prevent people from even scamming in the first place
lurkblader What about classifying it as; Server a Tax for Disobeying important large rules and the mods discuss a fair amount.
+1 for well-spoken opinions, examples, support, and grammar. I agree that there should be more punishment, but once in a blue moon, you'll find a scammer that will pay the victim back. A tax would hurt not only the scammer, but the victim as well.
I am still in support of harsher punishments for the crime of scamming. Being easy and forgiving has lead to scammers who just won't stay banned coming back again and scamming again. I won't name any names so people don't get all crazy. If they knew there is a 10% tax or whatever is decided if it is even decided upon then I don't see a problem with punishing people who committed their crime in the past (when making an appeal) since all crimes when convicted of were done in the past. These scammers do great harm to the community from what I have seen and if they never come back to the server then I won't be losing any sleep. They had their chance. They knew what they were doing. At this point in this servers life time that thousands of dollars are being spent on maintenance and thousands donated by the people we should be tough of those who decide to hurt the community in such a thought out way.
