Minecraft Name: @SCgenesis Suggestion: impose additional grievance money added to a players debt if a player gets banned and ows someone money. Example: player "x" gives player "y" a 80k loan do back to them as 100k in 1 week. 2 days later player y gets banned and player x files a loan scamming report. When the complaint is handled, the loan amount due would be multiplied by something like 1.25-1.5x the loan amount due to account for the inconvenience of player x getting his money scammed. When player y appealed they would have to pay 125-150k depending on the grievance multiplier Reason: it is incredibly unfair to lenders when a player gets banned and late fees don't continue during the ban. Normally when a player is unbanned they get an extra few weeks to pay back the money they ow which is a bunch of crap because it screws the lender over not only because they got their money scammed in the first place but also have to give the offending player a huge extension that they didn't agree to. This grievance multiplier would help compensate lenders for getting their money scammed and having to wait a rediculous amount of time to get their scammed money back. Any Other Information: the current way loan scamming complaints are handled FAVORS THE SCAMMER and gives them not punishment, but PERKS for scamming. Link To This Plugin/Is this a custom addition?: n/a
just make a clause in the contract saying that if the user is banned before the money is paid back, an extra x ECD is due -1
This is not true. Late fees ARE enforced in the large majority of cases except these ones, per @Nicit6's post: - Late fees do not accrue if a user is banned for breaching the agreement those late fees are a part of. - Late fees do not accrue if a user is banned incorrectly/by staff error/etc. - Late fees do not accrue if a user is banned for any reason and there is not a contract in place. - Late fees do accrue if a user is banned due to a separate reason and a forum contract is in place. These fees may accrue until the maximum specified in the contract.
Not true - According to @Nicit6's post via here: https://ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/suggestion-late-fees.137835/#post-749858
I wasn't negating your post, I was trying to say that I agreed with what you were saying, and my response was in addition to your post. I should've made that more clear.
I believe this was suggested a while back - one argument against this was that the banned player needs incentive to return.
I appreciate the understanding behind this - in rl for example, in debt claims a successful claimant is awarded interest. The issue is, we do need to not make it any harder than necessary for players to return. Unlike real life, if people don't want to repay, they just leave the server in comparison to more severe punishments in rl. I actually feel like the current system is about as good a balance as possible for ecc - people can negotiate limited late fees which provide some amount of compensation. Ultimately, harsher punishments may lead to people no returning which is worse than receiving just the original owed amount.
People who want to scam have no incentive to come back in the first place because they want to cause harm. Those who don't want to scam, had no intentions in doing it, and don't want to cause harm. Accidental scamming and adding a 50% interest on top of the already accrued interest is ridiculous, nor does argument make any sense for the reasons I mention above.
Your correct in the outcome of the situation, but you neglect the cause. If you cannot derive the cause, then obviously that statement is correct, but if you can, well, there's more substance than you would think. Player A wants to scam Player B. Player A will not appeal when he is banned and does not want to come back. What's the point of adding a grievance there since they're not going to come back? Player A does not want to scam Player B. However, Player A's life got quite hectic and was unable to pay Player B back. Player A is banned, and loves ECC, and wants to come back, but will now have to pay $50k on top of the $150,000 agreed upon at the deal ($100,000 loan with $50,000 interest). The total is now $200,000 and Player A does not want to have to pay that kind of money nor does Player A have the time to pay that back either. Clearly, there are no benefits to your suggestion whatsoever other than harming players who had no intentions of scamming to begin with. We only lose positive players through your suggestion, and you're much more focused on scamming rather than the motive.
Yeah well, agree to disagree. I personally don't care if someone doesn't intent to scam me but still does. Scamming is scamming no matter what way you put it. This isn't a "my life is so hectic so I get to scam server" and shouldn't be treated that way. Scammers are scammers they'res no silver lining.
Well, you clearly are more concerned in making sure players are shunned away from the server more than anything. Moreover, intent matters in even the most vile things of murder. And if you don't care if someone has the intent to scam you, fine, but you'll never get your money back with this suggestion.
I care about my money, and making it grow, and being compensated for the inconvenience of players not returning my investments. That is the purpose of this suggestion. Looks like we're not going to convince each other let's leave it at that.
