I'd like to restart a suggestion that seems good IMO, so here's the full post. Thanks to @Revanrose6 for making the suggestion! Minecraft Name: Revanrose6 Suggestion: I'm going to begin this with the following statement: I am not even sure I agree with this idea; I am putting it out there to see the pros and cons (Something our community is great at producing). So onto the idea. Give major scammers a probationary period.For how long? Well there are two ways we can go on that one: 1) Until the money is repaid. 2)For a set period of time. What does this probationary period mean? No lotto. No transactions worth over $10,000 without a moderator being aware and present. No rule breaking (Minor rule breaking might be passable simply because if we added it to the three strike system the probation would not work. Everyone would just be banned.) It also means that there would be a three strike system. Break probation once, get a mark. Twice, another mark. Thrice and you are back to being banned. How would we implement this? Each player who is deemed 'up for probation' upon appealing their ban would get assigned a probation officer. This officer would be a supermod+. Any player/staff who witnesses this probationary player breaking a rule from his/her probation (which should be outlined in the appeal) can PM his/her probation officer with evidence. Reason: Keep scammers under watch and thus reduce future scams.
This sounds really good. What if, to reduce the workload for the staff, the phrobation officers were players that had applied on the forums, and if rules were broken they were reported to this player and then this player could be responsible for giving out the "strikes" until the three strike mark has been reached, at which point the phrobation officer files a complaint to the staff. This way, staff would only have to deal with 1 complaint and not being there whenever the player wanted to make a transaction or deal with them if they broke the rules. Just a suggestion, but if done properly it could work!
I like this idea but how can we know if the probation officer isn't a friend of the felon? If they are friends the probation officer will just close his eyes until the probation period expires. Or maybe the probation officer dislikes the felon and lies to the staff so that the felon is banned again.
Hi, in answer to your question I think that it would be, a lot, down to trust. Here I would like to offer you with a similar scenario. For the purpose of this example we will have Staff A, Staff B, Player A and Player B. Player A is spamming characters in global chat. Staff A is Player A's friend. Staff A does nothing to try and stop this even though it has been going on for about 10 minutes. Player B then gets annoyed and says "Is anyone going to do anything about the spam?" to which Staff A does nothing. Knowing Staff A and Player A are friendly, Player B reports Staff A to Staff B and an official Staff complaint is made. Staff A is warned and told that he/she must not turn a blind eye to this, it is against the rules. As you can see from my example there is always another person to catch you out. If it had to, possibly the player could be assigned two phrobation officers. I am unsure if I made it clear but the officers would have to apply through the forums, just like staff. They would maybe get a tag, for instance it may look a bit like this: [G][$][President][Phrobation Officer]TaylorBros22: Just a suggestion!
Maybe that could work but I still don't see staff approving it because its gonna be just one more thing they will have to do. And even if they are not the probation officers they would still have to go through the applications and thats another hassle for them.
People need to learn that they can't just break tons of rules and then appeal and get right back on the server to possibly to it again +1
-1 people dont need to be babied. expecially if it takes up the time of a Smod+ to do so.. why punish our Smods for something that users do? the idea of no lotto would be ok because it can probably handled by a command of some sort.. the whole transaction thing is the bad part.
+1 to this idea in general although i am MUCH more leaning toward the side of making them pay back the $$ on probation and then lifting probation after that period. This way we help prevent scammers and possibly clean up a bit of the rubble from past scammers looking to appeal.
I would like this much better because if someone wants to apply for staff but doesn't have massive $ or recognition and/or doesn't know how to help, becoming a probation officer gives them some 1st hand experience with the server rule enforcement system.
One con is it makes it easier for users who owe money to be banned thus decreasing payback likeliness for the scammed.
It might take longer but we all know there is no such thing as a perma-ban on ECC so people will get their money back sooner or later.
A perma ban isn't the only reason someone stops playing, I can imagine bans are a great minority of reasons to stop playing. The problem here is that they quit. If they quit the person who they owe money doesn't get the money.
The workload and monitoring of this is stupid... There is already a three strike type system with staff. Players shouldn't be breaking rules anyway. We shouldn't be babying people wither who break rules and scam people. If anything, it will encourage it.
You have a point there but anyone can quit at any time banned or not. If I decide to quit I can take a huge loan and just leave the server if I was an a-hole. The "probation officers" can be players with a clean record not staff. They can just report whats going on with the person they are monitoring on the forums or via PM to a staff member. The three strike system is just a lie, there are plenty of players with 3+ offences still playing. Players shouldn't break the rules but they are and they will keep doing so. Its not babying people its controlling them. If they can't control themselfs someone else should. The way scammers are currently treated is babying.
