Quantity vs. Quality. It's not the amount of people that support your suggestion that matters, it's the overall quality of it. On paper this is the greatest idea I've seen, similar to communism. Those ideals are totally different, and they look great on paper, but they soon fail. Logistically speaking, the suggestion has flaws. Firstly, who is the scammer paying after they appeal? After they pay whoever, who holds onto the fund money? And then from there, how will the payment to the scam victim be arranged? These logistics have not been addressed yet, and I'd like to know how they would work. It seems like a lot of work to me. For four years, ECC has survived off of no refund for scamming, why should be institute it now? It just doesn't make much sense to me, but I understand you want to help out, and I fully agree with that. But, it's just a logistically flawed suggestion in my opinion.

 

@clou44 I have a question that is not really related to this suggestion but it is something I have always wondered about. What does it take for a suggestion to be accepted and implemented in game? High number of supporters, staff approval or phys's approval? I think that by now this suggestion has enough community support to be applied in game. Im asking because I have seen other suggestions with huge support and yet they never really get applied. It really seems to me that there isn't a reason to make suggestions at the moment if they are not gonna be accepted despite the community supporting it. One example I can give is the suggestion about bringing the old spawn back. This had like 90% approval rate and yet it never came to be.

 

This is a good idea but so easy to manipulate.
Player scams 100k, player is banned, other player loses 100k

If they appeal and come back and given more time, doesnt mean they are going to pay back lol
How many people have you seen not pay back ad get banned again for not paying back the loans.

This means you have paid someone pack and the server itself hasnt been given any money, so its down 100k.

 

Hence why after 1 month with no appeal, or they don't pay back, their assets are liquidated and taken out of the economy.

Again, it's logistically flawed. One of you has to log in to that account, arrange a time with the user in question, an so on. It seems great on paper, but it really doesn't look great in-game.

Here's a good question for you. The server does not support the buying of donation features from other users, right? Why does the server allow for complaints on this "Donation Scamming", even though the server does not support this method of trade. Nor does it support loans if I remember correctly. Why are they still allowed to file an actual complaint, even though the server does not support it? I've always wondered about this, and I think it would be great to get an answer.

 

And if they have no assets or give all there stuff away?

 

Well, I don't know then. That's why I don't like the idea really, nor do I like this one much better. It's the scam victims fault, not the servers. The burden should fall on the victim, not the layperson.

 

Honestly, I don't think it is fair to just say "you shouldn't give loans, you know the risk, [mod-edit] you." That's basically what I've read from a ton of people.

What about those who have given loans to people who were, until that point of scamming, trusted users? Part of the hardcore economy aspect is taking risks to make money. And yes, it is expected that their is the possibility to lose money. But who is to say we can't help someone out every now and then? @clou44 has said more times than I can count that this won't help EVERY user, so where the hell are you guys getting the idea that "people will carelessly loan out a lot of money because they know they will just get paid back if they're scammed and there's no risk."

Of course the suggestion has logistical flaws, every suggestion does. But that doesn't mean it just shouldn't be added because it has a few issues. Those flaws can't be 100% worked out until it is put into action and it can really be tested.

EDIT: Pardon the 'single' curse word. :)

 

"We're going to help this person, but not you. [mod-edit] you. Were going to help this person, but not the rest of you. [mod-edit] you guys."

It's worse helping one, but helping nobody else. It would just hurt those who need help, but the server turning their back on them.

As for risks, the risk is not changed whether or not the persons is a known scammer, the risk is trading and especially loans. Loans are risky, and if they get scammed, that sucks. In real life nobody donates to the person who just lost their 50k. The government does not refund them.

And the "increased people leaving" clou discussed in the thread is only a testamet to the amount of scammers, and people being careless.

Also, the system relies on the scammers appealing to have no economic affects. What if someone is repaid, but who is going to pay it back? What if they don't come back? What if they just give up raising finances?

Philanthropy is what causes scamming in the first place. People don't learn how to earn money themselves, and rely on the generosity of others. Mainly stemming from "Resident Scholarships" where builders lose the experience to earn money before going to a larger scale.

Helping people is not all good. Keep members? maybe. But they'll learn to expect help everytime something happens to them, and that's not always true.

 

That's why you can't just shut the suggestion down. Things would needto be figured out, and it will be tough to discern who gets paid and who doesn't. It has its flaws, and I understand that. But it is unfair to Clou to immediately shut it down because of said issues.

This type of suggestion takes time to implement, and I would hope people would be able to assit sin making it reaosnable, instead of just constantly arguing against it and pointing out all its flaws.

I for one, want to see it implemented, but I agree that it still needs work. I just don't see the use in constantly arguing against it. I'm sure there is some way that we can make it possible, to the point that it doesn't seem unfair or biased.

 

I see you talking about funds which only mods can use. What is to prevent them from misusing the funds?

 

I was talking about dorks idea, not yours...but ok

 

The odds of a Server Admin or Phys abusing the account is slim to none/

 

Are you kidding me? Some suggestions are shut down by staff for minor things, with no testing period. Even then this is hard to test, it's all relative to how many scammers, who got scammed (reactions) and its not fair for 3 people to get help then it's taken down.

 

k

 

Unfortunately, this suggestion came during possibly one of the worse week or two I have ever seen on ECC. Literally millions of dollars from dozens of users have been scammed in the last week or two with no end in sight. I do not pretend to know the amount that will be generated by this "lotto tax increase", but right now it feels very much like a "raindrop in a barrel of water".

 

This has been up since November :)