I has 69 Ratings :D

 

Wat no you don't. You have 70.

 

-_- its not over yet! Wait.... yes it is

 

Please stay on topic of the thread. ConferateBoys

 

Good Punishments are not harsh.
A harsh punishment is one that is meant to be cruel, unjust, and jarring.

If you don't believe in harsh punishments, you didn't choose the right word.

This rule, for example, would be considered no where near harsh because it isn't cruel.

 

+1 EXCEPT if there is proof the intention was there, I was buying a donation feature for someone and I had the wrong debit card on my account, the one I had was a used up prepaid card and so the transaction was denied, the user could have gone into /v or logged off, reported me, and I'd be banned, so I think it needs to be open to counter evidence

 

This may seem harsh to some people, but ecc really needs to crack down on scamming. The amount of scamming that goes on in our server is huge, and we need to keep that number down.

Ecc is supposed to be a fun, safe environment right? Let's make it more so.
+1

I do believe the only exception is accidental scam; Such as you didn't know that your paypal account was out of money, I mean you could pay the person back (and even more if you were generous)

^ Is one of the only situations I see not applying to the "attempted scam" penalty.

 

I agree Shane. I have seen the argument over and over about losing potential supporters if everyone is banned for scamming but what about the supporters that get scammed? Are we not really that worried about them as much? Accidents do happen and I believe our staff does the very best that they can to sort out the multitude of complaints they receive on a daily basis.
Just try advertising that you are buying an eff7 pick or a melonsword and see how many trolls you see coming out of the woodwork. The players that have the tool and you agree to a price - and then when you say to transfer thru a mod - oops, sorry can't find it right now - must have been loaned out or I lost it.
New players scammed are also just as likely not to become supporters of the server.
I personally would rather have the honest players on ECC instead of the scammers and trolls any day!

 

Amen
Nothing is going to change though.

 

I agree with this, it's either their caught and they return it or they get away with it. No matter what, they tried to scam, and had bad intentions. They deserve punishment.

+1

 

There are two concepts at work here, the first is the idea that guilt can be assigned to an intention that is evil but without consequence, and the second is that guilty people ought to be punished. The first idea is very defensible. The second idea is indefensible.

Guilt does not necessitate punishment—some immoral things are not consequential—because guilt does not necessarily violate the social contract. For example, imagine a builder has spent a few days building a very impressive structure in the wild, and some president comes along and destroys it without the informed consent of the builder. The structure was obviously the property of the builder (see Lockean Proviso for reason why it is property), so therefore by destroying the property the president took advantage of the builder—treating him as means to a different end—thus, violating the categorical imperative. This is an immoral action and the president is obviously guilty of immoral conduct, but this does not mean that the staff ought to punish the president. The staff get their authority by the means of the social contract, in other words; ECC has laws so that everyone can benefit from cooperating with each other. However, since the wild is not a place of cooperation, it is therefore impossible for the president to be accountable for his guilt—because his guilt was not consequential as it refers to the social contract. The act of scamming and returning the scammed goods is also like this, because cooperation was restored.

Formal Logic:

1. Staff gets authority from social contract.
2. Social contract gets its authority from the implicit consent of those in the society, for the sake of society.
3. Therefore, staff get their authority from the consent of those in the society, so society can provide good life.

1. Social contract is purposed so that society can cooperate with each other.
2. Society cooperates after arbitration.
3. Social contract is preserved.

Therefore,

1. Staff get their authority from social contract.
2. Social contract is preserved through arbitration.
3. Therefore, staff do not have the authority to act, because the social contract is not being violated.

 

The arbitration isn't fairly executed or regularly enforced.

It more arbitrary than arbitration

 

You missed the point. I meant that social contract is preserved--because of arbitration--in cases where the scammed property is returned. dork1877

 

I see the point, I agree with a temp ban yet strongly disagree with a actual ban. But if there are complications with the payment and a complaint is filed then you would be temp banned for attempt of scam meaning it will become hard to sell donation, for you will appear as a untrustworthy source of purchases.

 

I'm not comfortable with the underlined bits. ECC does not operate in the same way as a society does - ECC Staff get their authority from andrew. There is no such 'source of authority' in the real world, which is why social contract dictates that the source is the implicit consent of those in the society, for the sake of society.

 

The only flaw I see with 4 weeks is the fact that if they are gone for 2 weeks, their inventory is cleared, making it impossible to ever return the items. Are you saying they return items then get 4 week ban? Also with the 2nd part of ALL the items, how long of a ban were you thinking? Keep in mind for either way, 2 weeks and inventories are cleared along with e-chests

 

Unless you believe in the divine right of kings, there is no other way to explain justified authority beside using social contract theory. Just because the staff get their authority from Andrew, does not mean that the authority is derived by Andrew's will. Andrew can extend authority to members of the staff, because Andrew is considered the greatest authority, but not the author of that authority. Andrew gets his authority by the social contract, and he gives some of that authority to the staff. Imagine a scenario where Andrew decided that he would make scamming, griefing, and player killing completely legal in all areas of the server, including towns and private structures. How long do you think ECC would remain open after that decision? The entire community would collapse, players would find new servers, builders would stop joining with the intention of staying, and worst of all society would exist in a state of “continual fear and danger of violent death, where the life of man is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” If Andrew did something like that, if he enacted a policy that violated his social contract with the members of ECC, then the players would lose their reasons for recognizing him as an authority and would likely abandon the server. After losing all the players, ECC would become unsustainable and have to close down.

What makes this server so great is that Andrew is not like the person I described above, he acts for the best interest of ECC striving to keep the players happy and engaged. He understands that the society on ECC is what keeps the server running, so it seems silly to argue that social contract does not apply. Dewsy92

 

My main point was to punish the scammers for as long as possible while also allowing the victim to regain the stolen items. This is why I wanted it to be a long temp-ban. Though I suppose 2 weeks would suffice.

 

Very Interesting topic, Mendiboi, this social contract. It does bring up some questions that are unanswered. Does a social contract entitle us to protection from people who are known to Intend harm? Do those people need to be removed from social interaction? If you intend to murder and fail and your victim does not bring charges then the killer is released back into society. Is this a good contract or a dangerous one, dangerous for others besides the one person who he attempted to kill. How much leeway does the social contract grant?

And, if there is arbitration, what is to prevent the scammer from bullying their victim into agreeing to terms? The victim could be threatened with violence, shame, embarrassment many things could happen to force a resolution outside of the control of the arbitrator. For instance, women who are raped face tremendous public shame and humiliation at times. Do we want to protect ourselves from frequent crime repetition, especially by the same person? But then what must we give up to achieve that kind of goal?

Anyway, your posts made my mind drift these directions and really activated some fairly worn out brain cells too (thank you :) ) so I just HAD to stir the pot a bit!

 

There is a difference between the scammer that I outlined and the case of the murderer. The murderer failed to accomplish a crime, whereas the scammer succeeded, but then resolved the conflict and returned the items. Cooperation was reestablished in the case of the scammer. There is absolutely no leeway given by the social contract, because if something threatens society, then it will obligate action to prevent the threat, the caveat is that when a threat is resolved, then it is resolved and does not warrant further interference. Once I hired a company to clean my carpet, and they managed to break a water pipe. For some reason they thought it wasn't their problem, but after some preliminary legal work, they agreed to repair the damage. Now, should this company still be punished by judicial authority because they initially refused to fix it, or does the fact that they eventually came to their senses and fixed their wrongdoing preserve cooperation?

Perhaps I used the word 'arbitration' incorrectly, I meant that if a scammer decides to fix their wrongdoing by returning the scammed items, perhaps after being complained against, then the problem is resolved. You can make a case if the particular scammer is a repeat offender, but making a rule that requires mandatory punishment for all scams, whether or not they are resolved, is outside the scope of authority. Rheasmom