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

 

staff ignore late fees if a player is banned.

 

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

 

Make a contract, and you won't have an issue.

-1

P.S. 1.5x is a ridiculous grievance.

 

Yes, that is my point. Have a proper agreement and there will be no issue.

 

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.

 

Knears has pretty much nailed how I would have responded, so not going to try and reword it!

 

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.

 

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.