The benefit is the freedom to give those loans if that makes sense. I would say, you're now asking us to head towards a server where you aren't allowed to make deals that strongly benefit you (which is the point of the economy no?). But I know you will never agree with that. Since I run into this argument with United so much I guess ill look at why we will never agree so this doesn't go on for 4 pages like last time. Both of us value different things. On one side we have personal freedoms of people (things they are allowed to do). Things like selling goods for profit, owning a store, Buying nether stars from a builder for $300. All of these things take advantage of other players. On the other side we have the general welfare/fairness. Rules enforce things such as don't scam other players. Don't fake auction. All of these things take away from a players freedoms. When you add to one of these things it takes away from another. E.X. The rule don't scam players takes away a players freedom to scam. Allowing people to sell nether stars for $300 hurts the welfare of the builder. Now obviously the best system mixes both personal freedoms with government control. The question is how many freedoms do you sacrifice in order to promote the welfare of people. Or how badly do you allow people to be taken advantage of to promote freedoms. This is a question of which do you value more. Personally, I value player freedoms more than player welfare. Therefore on this issue, and others like it I see a problem with these rules that I see as infringing on that. (There are other reasons too for this one but staying on topic). Many players on the server value player welfare more than personal freedoms. US2 (also kuke) will never agree with my view as they see it as hurting people. I will never agree with their views because I think players should be free to do those things. Thus we will forever rating each others posts potato (waits for potatoes).
https://ecocitycraft.com/forum/threads/user-complaint-fazeeeeeeeeeeeey.147389/ Another example of late fee's being handled differently, or not at all... Thought it would be relevant for this suggestion.
Definitely relevant. I imagine it would make most sense would be that so long as the late fees are correctly covered under the contract and legal, only the lender has the ability to waive them at their discretion. Like for example every time my mom gets an overdraft fee she gets so upset they end up waiving the fee. They have the ability to withdraw the funds but choose not to. I think that allowing the lender the ability to waive fees is great because it will help settlement agreements form and large debt situations get paid back faster. But I suppose an argument could be made for holding the lender to uphold the fees no matter what as well.
Either I'm being really, really, blind or that agreement doesn't even have a due date to charge late fees on.
I mean I don't see anything unusual with the late fees. The lender is waiving them (despite the fact they can't really charge them but that's another point), and I don't see any reason why that should or can be interfered with (because you can't).
I can't speak for @Mission001 himself but I believe it wasn't that he had any sort of issue with the waiving of fees but rather was bringing it up as something to be clarified in the rules while we are at it. And I agree, most clarified to state who can or cannot if they can/cannot waive fees. I think it's just bureaucracy because everyone I believe is on the same page about the lender having the right but I sure could go for some thorough regulations. There's something wrong with me maybe but if we are gonna enforce and be bureaucrats I sure want to be thorough about the way things work really get in and sort out how it's handled. Maybe there should even be two or three mods who specialize very thoroughly in contractural agreements. It's kind of a big deal here.
He is only prepared to waive them if he gets paid now... Like ooo said, if he wasnt prepared to waive them, there should be a rule in place stating they aren't in force if they dont specify the length of late fee's, then they cannot file a complaint until the deadline of those late fee's are up.
I think its a poor example as its a pretty much horribly structured contract to begin with, and if it were made on the forums, hopefully it would have been more formal.
Oh right. I'm pretty sure that open ended late fees are just supposed to be ignored when handling a complaint like that. Can't exactly use this complaint as evidence as it seems it's already being handled incorrectly. Honestly that seems a little overkill. Contractual agreements are really not that complicated, and should not be treated as if we need a legal team specializing in case law to interpret and enforce them. yea you sniped my above post stating as such
Surely everything you just said backs up the fact something needs to be done? Lol They are supposed to be ignored but we see in some cases that they aren't, in this one they are ignored, but there is no deadline for the original loan (but he is being kind and waiving the late fee's lol) And you saying it's being handled incorrectly. Posting the complaint was for people to discuss a live example of a contract that has been made incorrectly,
It shouldn't be that big of a deal but I like to look at the archive sometimes to find some drama and it sure can be a helluva big deal and I think 10 for 10 of those threads amassing 10-50+ replies get there because even the moderation is running like a chicken with its head cut off about rules and enforcement. Plus I wasn't envisioning some shadowy guild of penny pinching mods here lol.
