Minecraft Name: Monchy93 Suggestion: My suggestion is to pay back users who were scammed by doing a raffle for a coupon code. The maximum raffle tickets you can buy is 5 (which makes it more fair to all users) and each ticket is worth 7-8k.(The raffle ticket price could be worked on.) Each ticket is to be sent to a Server Admin or maybe even Physicistsmom with timestamp of purchase. Then, the money would be sent over to the person who was scammed. The coupon code amount will depend and vary on how much was scammed. Idea Raffle Prize(s): coupon code, rare blocks (bedrock block) Reason: Well, so many people are getting scammed, and there isn't any motivation to help people who were scammed. When users see the two words "coupon code" all of a sudden there's a reason to help them get there money back. And there isn't really a way to help scammed victims right now. Other Information: In a synopsis, this is what I'm suggesting: run a raffle where ECC users buy tickets that cost around 5k that go toward a fund for the big scams. The scammed user gets their money back and ECC users have a chance at winning a coupon code. Obviously, the scammed user does not participate in the raffle because they will get their money back. And again, it's not the community's problem, it's the player's problem. But right now, scamming is causing a problem within the community. I wouldn't want to see users quitting because of this. We need a solution. This doesn't have to be permanent. And maybe this deals with 200k or more scammed. Anyone scammed lower than 200k will also have a raffle for 15$ coupon code or less. If you decide to comment, please elaborate on what you think! Thanks! Link to this plugin: N/A
-1 I am not against helping scammed users, but this would suck the risk out of the economy. Right now, if I were to start loaning money, I have to look at a users ranks/join date/prior complaints ect. to decide how likely I am to get scammed. I have to take some risk to make money, but I need to work to minimize that risk. If this were implemented, it would succeed in raising hundreds of thousands of eco dollars, but unfortunately requiring the server to spend its real money helping people who made poor desicions. That aside, if this were done on a regular basis, it would form a safety net. Creditors would be likely to give out huge loans to new players who can't afford to pay them back, and then take compensation from the server when those players were banned for "scamming". So users could indiscriminately give loans without any risk, and players credit which they have built up becomes worthless. All that being said, if you are interested in carrying out this plan, I see no reason why it couldn't be player based, as long as you could find someone willing to provide the feature. Save the SA/SO's time. Anyway, that's what I think
How would this suck money out of the economy if 1 or 2 users won a coupon code? It's not a big blow to the economy, and we're mainly talking about the big scams that have happened around 300k+. Also, I said this doesn't have to be permanent. New users aren't likely going to agree to something that won't uphold to. For example, do you think a builder would lie about how they earned money for resident? No, because it specifically says,"lying will result in ban." How many new users (builders) do you know that want a loan of 100k or more?
-1 We have to remember that it's not our fault that people got scammed. I just don't think GIVING money should be the way to help, but we should PREVENT it instead.
Read clou's suggestion, it's basically the same thing. As well, it's the scam victims problem, not everyone else's. I think it's great that you want to help out, but start your own charity fund, not a server run one.
I agree that it's not our fault, but this motivates players to help pay back scammers. Clou's suggestion has erupted because no one wants a higher lotto tax. Also, I notice that you, knears and a few others are against the idea and no one else is.
Players aren't required to pay back scammed players. There is no need for a motivation. If a player is motivated to do so, they can do it on their own time. Philanthropy is great, but is not run be the server, which is basically what you're suggesting. Also, why do you point out that I'm against these suggestions? It does nothing to better your argument at all.
A higher lotto tax is fine, and also vintage_gamer and I agree that lotto tax is good Now onto people who claim it is not our responsibility to help scammed people Many of you say it is the victims own fault, which it not always is For example, how can you know whether the person is a scammer or not? Maybe it is they're first scamming people and there are no pervious records. Also many people say you should not loan out money in the first place, which i strongly disagree. Any modern-day strong economy has loaning since it can improve the economy by having more people spend money. For example in irl, without loaning, you would not be able to buy a home without saving and waiting for years. It is also the same for ecocitycraft, you see tons of people taking out loans, just look in the contracts section. Also, saying it is not our responsibility to help those in need is just plain-out selfish. Not only selfish but it hurts the economy also. When a scammed player gets banned, the money goes with the player, which will make it so the scammed victims will spend less on our shops ect. While in a ideal world scamming would not happen, it will always happen since they're are some people out there who just want to get rich without working hard +1 to this suggestion and clou44's suggestion
It's not selfishness, it's capitalism. It's my money, I should spend it how I like. This is a capitalistic economy, not pity to the poor. People earned their money, they shouldn't have to send it to someone else if they don't want to. Your ideals are totally off-base to an actual economy. How does it "hurt the economy"? There is millions of dollars spawned into the economy each and everyday. What does that cause? Inflation. Inflation is bad, and you know that very well. When someone scams, (this is often a rarity, as the money is usually just moved around through scamming) and they hold onto the money, and get banned, that money is now out of the economy. Preventing what? You guessed it! Inflation. Uh, do you understand how the shops work here? They're run by users, as they cost less to buy goods, rather than buying from the server. Shows your understanding of this economy. Also, loaning on ECC is not good. You shouldn't loan, as there is no guarantee you'll get your money back. That's why the practice of loaning on ECC is usually not viewed as the best way to make money. Money on ECC isn't lost, it's moved around. Get a grip of the economy here before you start throwing things like that out there. Thank you.
Actually, capitalist economies have always gave money to the poor, unless you are talking about "the good ol' days" when poor were left to die on the street (1920s and earlier). Also inflation is not bad. High inflation is bad but inflation is not. Inflation was always part of any economy and can be a sign of economic expansion since more people have money and will demand more things, which will raise prices, thus inflation. Also more money supply does not always mean inflation See this chart of the US money supply As you see the inflation rates were not generally connected to the money supply, although big changes can produce inflation. Now, back to the topic, i don't see why price increases with economic expansion is bad. It just means more people are going to our shops and buying our stuff and demanding them, so we increase prices
A little inflation isn't bad. It is a sign of economic growth. But your ideas of not having money being taken out would be CATASTROPHIC to the economy's stability. Yes, but the value of the dollar is lost. That's what your not understanding. With the general rise in price, the dollar value will decrease. Making people poor all around. That's what your missing. As well, capitalist economies do indeed give their money to the poor, by choice. The idea with clou's is an involuntary donation. As AgentHare said greatly, "Philanthropy causes scamming, and people not being able to get back on their feet". If we just have a fund where people are continually paid by the server, they lose out on how to make money. It creates a lazy economy, something we don't want.
It does not create a lazy economy since you earned the money and you lost it. It's called getting what you had back. Also, do you want deflation on the server?
I agree with @UnitedStates about loaning money is important to an economy. You know people in the real world would get a loan to buy to a truck for their company or put food on the table, but today, people get loans for stupid things like expensive cars they could never afford or expensive houses. No wonder the United States is a billon dollars in debt! They just keep borrowing more and more money. Back to ECC though, loans are needed to have an economy. I'd rather start a fund, big or small, to help them then see them quit. Would you want scamming to be the downfall of ECC? No, this is why Clou and I have made these suggestions.
It does create a lazy, server dependent economy. If you lose your money, and then get it back, you won't work nearly as hard. Doesn't that sound familiar to something we have in the US today.... What are you even talking about deflation for? That's entirely irrelevant. What?
What is your point? Just to point out, the US production rates have skyrocketed since the Victory or WWII, one of the major factors pulling us out of the Depression. As well, the population has risen quite substantially, causing a rise in production as well. Your basis on that is fairly irrelevant.
It is not. My point is you claim in your previous post that Americans are lazy. If they are so lazy then how come they have very high productivity?
When did I say Americans were lazy? I said by creating a system similar to a current US system, it would create a lazy, government/server dependent playerbase. That's what I said. Clearly, you did not read it correctly.
