It makes sense but who decides who will get the "charity" money from lotto?

 

I really didn't word my question righ. What I really mean is how does one decide who to get the money? Most recent scam victim, most scammed victim, is it random and if it is what is the principle behind it? There was a site that you put in names/numbers/letters etc and it shuffles them at random and gives you some order is it like that or is it going to be a random pick by the GA?

 

If a scammer scams, and appeals successfully, they should be placed in TWC (Trade With Caution), meaning a [TWC] tag could be seen next to their names in game. If this was implemented less people would scam because they wouldn't want to get highlighted in chat. The tag could last a couple of months.

 

I just have the feeling that whatever you do there will be people who will feel cheated by this system and maybe some sort of a random system is the most fair way to go. But as you said this has yet to be decided.

This is a great idea! Only the ban isn't enough, there should be a stigma attached to scamming and people must know who is a scammer or not. I hate when I have to alt+tab before a big deal to search in the forums someones ban/report history. With this [TWC] tag it makes it easier to spot users who are not trustworthy.

 

It makes sense, but you're taking from the people who are playing lotto. By hiking up taxes, you're still assuming that people are going to play lotto to the extent that it is normally played. This will not happen. 15% tax is already too high, and now 20% tax? That's absurd. Taxes are too high, and doing the wrong reasons. This is literally welfare, and we all know how that turned out...

 

That's the most derogatory thing ECC will ever implement. All you need to do is search them on the forums, no publicly slander them every time they post a message in chat. Again, so many other options to prevent scamming, yet people don't take them and get scammed. That's on them, not the lotto players. And yes, scammers are bad, but they shouldn't be publicly slandered either.

 

Oh yeah right a 20% tax once in awhile will bankrupt you. Just don't play lotto when the tax is 20% and problem solved there are others who will still play its up to the people if they want to play they will.

 

My point exactly. You hit the nail on the head. No one will play with a 20% tax, or at least not nearly as many people. My point is that even though the tax has risen 5% and clou claims that it is almost "unnoticeable", not as many people will play. Thank you for saying that.

 

It is not slander if its true and its meant like a warning not an insult. BTW I see you bash other people's ideas but you never suggest something else instead.

 

But there will be some who will still play so lets do it even if there are not as many there are still some that will play and their money will still help a few people. Don't forget the hardcore lotto addicts that will stop for nothing to play even if it was a 50% tax.

 

I don't need to suggest something else. My suggestion on it is to not add it. Yes, it is slander. You're publicly calling them a "scammer" and "do not trade with them". You see people in-game yelling at others saying "Don't buy from [username]! He overcharges you on everything!". What do you see next in chat? A staff member telling them to stop. Same idea, that's why it will not happen. Try a forum search next time instead.

No, people will not lotto as much. There will not be as many sales as there normally would, so it would almost be negligible. Great, you helped one person out, but that's not enough, not enough at all.

 

1. I do go to the forums when someone seems shady or if I am doing a big deal but why not save that time by adding a tag. And its not as if no one will trade with them but people will take screenshots and use signs/chests when trading with those scammers. I don't see why scammers should be protected if you don't want the tag don't scam in the end its their fault.

2. Well helping one person is better than helping no one and you can't argue with that. But I strongly doubt that people will stop playing lotto with 20% because clou44 said that this will be during crazy lotto and the prize is so big that 5% more tax isn't really that much.

 

1. You're wrong though. You're slandering the user, and that isn't right. Again, like you said before, we don't know the intentions behind the user in question, so it can be very, very misleading. It's breaking the slander rule, and you know it. If you're even going to try and argue that, I don't even know...

2. Yeah, that's great but it's not effective. Great, one person out of the 20 eligible were helped. 5% of the people were helped. That's not going to cut it. 19 others leave, but one stays. That does just as much as not helping anyone in the first place. It's not an effective system. Still, lottery sales will go down. It's not an effective system.

 

Let's take a gander at all the scam refund ideas, that you all knocked down, or died out, but now all the sudden are all over the idea.

http://www.ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/suggestion-scam-refunds.111464/#post-593719
http://www.ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/scam-returning-idea.111890/
http://www.ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/suggestion-giftcard-scam-refunds.40533/
http://www.ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/suggestion-scamming-refund.85096/

I know for a fact that there a lot more of these suggestions, but none of them received the attention similar to this thread, and such positive feedback. Sketchy that now that the SA suggests this you're all over it? Just a little sketchy...

 

Well I haven't been active on the forums before so I don't know about the other threads but I support anything about helping getting rid of scammers. To be honest scammers are the worst thing after griefers and if a tag next to their name limits scamming I am all for it if its "slander" fine because scamming is disrespect towards the other party so its only fair to treat scammers the same way. And what are you talking about intentions when you reffer to scammers, their intention is to screw someone over so they can make some extra cash for lotto ot whatever.

 

I think it is awesome that you are concerned about losing players, however, I have some major concerns about this suggestion.
How will the staff ever be able to dedicate the time needed for a program such as this?
How will the staff be able to verify that even more scamming is not going on due to alt accounting, teaming, or other such schemes that scammers seem to come up with every day? I am concerned since we just had a staff member that was alt accounting even and there have been many others that went on for long periods of time before found out.
And the math - let us just say for example that there are 10 scams in one week (not unheard of). So if one player receives money to compensate for their loss, there will nine players that will be quite disappointed (possibly even more so if this program did not exist).
I would agree to a suggestion like this if it were players (a council of sorts) rather than the server that would be making these decisions.
I also feel that the money should come in the form of donations from the player base and not from the server.
Just my $.02 worth.
A final note is that I appreciate you and all of the staff very much and would be glad to donate my time, effort, and money if you were to decide to make this happen.

 

+1 This would help players that were gonna use their money before loaning it to re use their money on what they wanted to.

 

I don't know if I said this before but there could be fines for scammers. For example if player A took a loan of 100k from player B and didn't repay the loan, gets banned, appeals repays player B the 100k, player A should also pay 10% of the loan to a mod. This money then goes to other players that didn't get their money at all. Put this on top of the extra 5% on lotto and you can help even more scammed players.