[Suggestion] Help Pay Back Scammed Players

Well people have asked A LOT of clarifying questions, often multiple times. And now I feel like most/all gray areas have been cleared if you want to go through all 28 pages of replies, but if this is done someone would need to make a statement to clear things up. I'm kinda confused about what has been "danced around the whole time" so can you clarify that because its kinda vague what you mean.

 

Ok, here are my questions.

1. Any qualifications needed for the refund?
2. Can someone receive a refund more than once?
3. If it is a lottery, will a person be in until they're refunded? Or will there be a cycle?
4. Can someone be in the lottery more than once?

If it is not a lottery:

1. Application?
2. Risk system devised, as suggested by @Gmoneyman118 ?
3. How often will people be refunded?
4. Is there a maximum refund allocated for?
5. Will amount of wealth be a factor?
6. Will rank be a factor?
7. Amount scammed be a factor?

Misc. Questions:

1. When a scammer is unbanned, how will the user pay the "server"? Via a sign or person in-game?
2. How will we know when to ban them if they default?
3. If we have gone four years without this, why is it needed?

Quite a few gray areas if I say so myself.

 

1. Well someone would need to prove they were scammed and have proper evidence.
2. Probabally
3. Well I'll assume we'll run a weekly system because we would receive money weekly so a new pool of victims weekly.
4. If they get scammed more than once probabally

1. I can assume there would be an application.
2. Possibly
3. I'm not sure what you mean, but the answer will prob be weekly.
4. As much as the fund can afford I will assume
5. Possibly
6. Possibly
7. Possibly

1. Most likely by a bot
2. When a complaint is filed and dealt with, idk what this has to do with this suggestion but whatever.
3. Very little is "needed" but if you things are perfectly fine how they are right now idk what to do with you.

For the record I can't answer most of these questions with certianty because I am not staff. The questions answered with proababally or possibly it is because I don't have the ability to know the answer because that is staffs decision not mine. Pretty much all of these questions revolve around 1 gray area, how will people be picked, so no there aren't really that many gray areas.

 

This proves my point. If you can be picked more than once, free money for you. I'm going to bed and will respond more thoroughly tomorrow morning.

 

Again you're ignoring the points I made before. There is no free money. If you get chosen you don't gain anthing. You just don't lose anything. After the multiple timse I said this I don't undersand what it takes for you to understand this.

 

@knears2000
I suggested this risk assessment

But anyway, if I alone were running the system, it would be run like the following:

1. Any qualifications needed for the refund?
No. At least, not initially. We could gauge this more accurately obviously after running the system but other than the risk assessment I see no reason to have other qualifications.
I mean, obviously we'll require there to be a ban issued based on a complaint and an application filed.

2. Can someone receive a refund more than once?
I don't see why not should they score properly on the risk assessment. We don't want to discourage loaning/transactions in general, we want to discourage careless loaning/transactions.

3. If it is a lottery, will a person be in until they're refunded? Or will there be a cycle?
I don't imagine it would be a lottery. I imagine it being application based, and applications land a player on a list. Their risk assessment will score them a certain number of points and this determines where they will be on the list. Time of the applications submission will only matter in cases where equal risks were assessed - saftey/risk will be the main priority.

Once on the list they stay until either payed or the scammer has successfully appealed. If the scammer is rebanned for this debt they may reapply and will retain their score from the previous time.

4. Can someone be in the lottery more than once?
Not really applicable.

If it is not a lottery:

1. Application?
Yes.

2. Risk system devised, as suggested by @@Gmoneyman118 ?
Yes.

3. How often will people be refunded?
Weekly or Bi-Weekly, I'd think weekly.

4. Is there a maximum refund allocated for?
Not exactly. In my system the amount of the loan/debt/what have you would come into play in the risk assessment as higher values are inherently more risky. This would mean that all other factors aside, a $25,000 value would retain a higher priority than $250,000. Again though, in practice I could see this changing.

5. Will amount of wealth be a factor?
No; very simply it is far too difficult to attain this information.

6. Will rank be a factor?
Probably the rank of the scammer for risk assessment. Not the rank of the victim.

7. Amount scammed be a factor?
See #4, tl;dr yes.

Misc. Questions:

1. When a scammer is unbanned, how will the user pay the "server"? Via a sign or person in-game?
Person, to whichever GA+ staff handled the appeal. This amount could then be removed by Phys and stored only numerically in documentation (like credit/ebanking/what have you; pardon if that's a terrible analogy but I hope it gets my point across).

2. How will we know when to ban them if they default?
Scammers are already given a timeframe when they appeal, this wouldn't change. They would then have a forum PM (or possibly something public, I'd rather something public but regular complaints and their forum wouldn't be appropriate in my opinion) started by the appropriate staff member at the end with basically normal complain proceedings, as well as granting a final period (typically 24 hours) to pay. If they then did not pay and could provide no proof of paying they would be banned.

3. If we have gone four years without this, why is it needed?
I personally disagree with this question entirely - saying something has to be "needed" in order to be added seems rather like it would discourage progress in general. It would help to improve player experiences and I don't see what is wrong with that, nor why you would stand in the way of it, assuming you could guarantee proper implementation (I'm all for standing in the way of poorly constructed policy so long as done through appropriate means).

 

@knears2000 Actually just disregard of my answers to the questions nicit6 did a better job answering them than I ever could.

 

@nicit6 nail'd it! This way the system encourages players to be more careful when trading and at the same time refunds those who got scammed. And as a "side effect" this might reduce scamming a bit because people will be more careful if this is implemented and will pay more attention to the player they are trading with (for example- background check in the forums).

 

You're not understanding because I haven't explained it correctly. In what is supposedly a lottery system, proposed by clou, you can get scammed, go in, and hope for the best. That money is no longer in your balance, correct? If I get scammed $100k, that money is no longer mine, as it is not in my balance. Correct? Entitlement wise, it is yours, but speaking literally, it's no longer yours. If you get scammed, it's a safety net. People who get scammed now, for the most part, have to earn their money back, and that is not "free", it's "earned". However, when you fall onto the safety net, it's giving you money into the palms of your hands. Therefore, it is "free money". Do you get my point?

So close to getting it, but yet, so far.

Certain methods need to be devised in order to prevent bias. Bias is killing you on this one. Any application process has bias to it. Since your staff, I don't know how you guys pick people for staff, but, if there is some way of preventing bias, it would need to be implemented here. If you're going to try to argue me on this about how "there won't be bias", don't even. Tell me why the Scientific Method was implemented? Then come back to me. The entire picking of players is so flawed that it would never get passed this stage of the game. Unless, an "anti-bias" method is devised, alongside a risk assessment on trades.


But really, just think. If we call ourselves the "#1 Major Hardcore Economy" server, why should this happen. Because it seems to me, this ain't all that hardcore, at all...

 

The risk assessment on trades can have a point system. The more points the applicant has the more likely it is that he/she will be picked for a refund. For example: in-game screenshots of the trade- 5 points, forum contract 10 points, rank of the offender 1-8 for each rank from builder (1) to ecolegend (8) etc. This is just an example but many other factors can be put in to this point system. And this will eliminate biased staff members. And if there are players with the same amount of points the refund will get the oldest application but this won't happen that often.

 

Screenshot of trade? No, that's dumb because you need to prove you were scammed in the first place.

No one has addressed this yet either. If we are the "#1 Major Hardcore Economy" server, how does this make us hardcore? Even though we're providing a safety net to players?

 

I was giving an example it doesn't have to be any of those things, but a system like that will not allow biased staff members to dictate who gets refunded and who doesn't.
About your second question, even if every builder gets 100k when they start ECC will still be more hardcore than most eco servers. Also "#1 Major Hardcore Economy" is just an advertisement. There are tons of "#1" servers out there and how many do you think live up to that title? I'm guessing none because its a subjective matter. This is a stupid argument, if someone thinks ECC is not hardcore enough for them they can leave at any time.

 

A safety net is not hardcore at all. Don't false advertise then.

 

Im not the one who made that advert and this suggestion is not about that. If you feel that the server should change that make a new suggestion. As I said before this is subjective, I still think the server will remain hardcore when compared with other eco servers but there are people who think that its not hardcore even now. This will never be settled and there is no point to argue over that. In the end both sides will still play on ECC because its a good eco server and I doubt someone will find a better one any time soon.

 

Why are you calling out just one point of his post? It doesn't make sense to call out just one line and completely miss the point. I do agree with the general thing - these would be handled on a point based system with little room for bias by staff. And I assume he means in-game screenshots would receive a lesser score than a deal enforced with a contract as those with the contract would be more secure.

So what goes first, hardcore or economy? Because all things considered I think this would be great, it would encourage safe transactions, encourage loaning (again, loaning in itself isn't bad, careless loaning is), and overall improve player experiences. Also, by definition, its not a safety net. A saftey net offers a guarantee of security and this does inherently not -- while it may to those who are most careful, for most there will never be guarantee. They can never know if they'll be high on the list, if someone might get placed higher, or how much the fund might pay back each time it does.

 

Already found one.

I pointed out that line and that line only because I was too lazy to argue the rest. I'll do that now to satisfy you.

1. If I trade with Exilenla, a moderator who is a builder, and he scams me, I only get 1 point? Yet if I trade with Giant_Leader, I get 4? Makes no sense whatsoever.
2. It doesn't necessarily get rid of "biased staff members". They still have the final word on who is and isn't chosen. And faking of points and so on. It's still very, very shaky.
3. Contracts do nothing. It was a dumb add. If you take proper screenshots, it's the same thing as a contract, so long as they agree to everything. They do nothing.

I like safe transactions, don't get me wrong. But this system is ineffective. Nor should anyone get paid back from a scam by the server. If you want to found a charity, by all means, go ahead and make one. I want to see that, but not from the server. Why won't people do that? I don't know. But for everyone that's for this suggestion, you all have the opportunity to make a fund, or even donate to one. So why should a server run be implemented? So many more things could go wrong than right. That's what. So if you agreed to this, you should go found a charity or something, or donate to one. But by all means, do make a server run one. It's weakness at it's finest.

 

Good I hate the lottery idea. It should be an application judged by admins.

 

Judged = Bias

 

1. If the system were to be based entirely on rank I'd agree with that not making sense, but it'd also take into account ban history, transaction amount, other transactions (ones that could possibly be found, like if you searched the contracts section to find the guy you were about to loan money to was already in debt) as well as security of the agreement (as inherently better/safer agreements do exist).

2. If you don't trust our staff to make the best choices I'm not really sure I can help you. It could be scored publicly and the amounts as well as list public, with the rubrics public knowledge, then bias wouldn't come in to play because anyone could do the math and figure where someone scores, and if you think there was bias involved or it's inaccurate you could bring it up in the form of a staff complaint or discussing it with the staff member.

3. Contracts make a safer system if everyone used them. Staff approval does what it can to prevent deals from being too harmful to either side. It puts your deal in a public forum so others know.

You think that the system will go wrong but if it does we can end it. I'd at the very least like to see this tested in a trial - see how it does work out. If we have it for a week, or a month, and nothing goes wrong, awesome! If something does, we can adjust the system to fix it, or end the system entirely if there's some catastrophic failure. None of the policies in this system would be unchanging, I'd rather prefer a system that changed to meet its needs. You say "Go found a charity" but you and I both know that a server run one would have infinity more influence and ability to fund-raise than anything player created.

Then you resort to saying "weakness at its finest", which really just kind of seems out of place - I really don't care if we look "weak", I care about players enjoying their time here, and this can help.

 

Well admins would have the be the deciders in some way.