Clou, you obviously have not seen the lotto addicts we have here on the server :p
However, thinking about this more - players that scam are often the same players that you see playing lotto. So, in effect, they would be helping to pay the victims with money they scam and put in the lotto. Sweet circle of life.
Sorry about that, I think I just confused myself and now my brain hurts. :banghead:

 

Ok, then people won't play. You have no evidence that a 5% tax increase will do nothing to people playing lottery. Do I have any evidence that it will decrease play? No, so what should we do, implement the idea of 20% tax for two days to take away any factors, find an average, then compare that to similar days prerequisite to that. I think that's the only way you can truly back up this point.

 

But a feeble attempt will do little to nothing. It's not enough for it to be effective is what I'm trying to say.

 

Please stop ignoring every post I make.

 

But speculation has no fact or evidence to back it up, correct? Do I have any evidence that it would go down? No, do a trial run, that's the best chance at seeing the success of this suggestion.

 

First off here you pretty much prove my point that what you really care about is not wanting to pay an extra 5% tax. Secondly yeah it is people's fault for being scammed, because they took a leap of faith in the player to player market and people having trust in the player to player market is ESSENTIAL FOR THE ECONOMY. If people didn't take these risks countless markets would be destroyed, so we need people to take risks which makes your point invalid. Thirdly Clou ( I believe it was clou) already proved that the lottery is resilient and people have and will play lotto when the taxes changed and other rules changed against their favor, so people will STILL PLAY LOTTO BECAUSE LOTTO IS RESILIANT. Fourth your welfare argument is very ironic considering you discourage people to take risks forcing them to rely on a server-player economy then you say players should be reliant on other players. But it doesn't matter, at all, because this doesn't cause players to be reliant on the server. This doesn't cause users to rely on the server because THEY CANT EVEN RELY ON THE SERVER. As I've stated before and you've just blatantly ignored. You don't have a 100% change of getting confiscation from the system. This means they can't rely on the system, which is fine the point here is to help some and give hope to others which it effectively does.

 

This isn't a feeble attempt. This helps a lot of people every week and gives hope to even more and just hope is enough to keep some people on the server.

 

Answer these questions please:

What do you mean that I don't "want to pay an extra 5% on lottery". I sure as hell don't, and I don't see your logic behind it being a bad thing. Who wants to pay higher taxes? Nobody, so please explain how me not wanting to pay an extra 5% on lottery is a bad thing because I really want to know.

So many things can be done to prevent scamming. You're ignoring me in fact because you're not looking at my point. If you took all the precautions that can be taken and you got scammed, that's unfortunate. This "leap of faith" you speak of is basically someone risking it all without doing any research or things of that nature. If you don't prevent scamming, then it's not the people's problem, it's yours. And you cannot force someone to help another out, that's final.

People will still play lotto, sure, but not to the extent that we currently see. Yes, lotto is resilient to some extent, but it won't be nearly as active during these tax hikes. Do I have any evidence, no. But I can tell you people will not play as much.

How is point four even rebutting what I said? You've just made up extremely irrational ideas. I said that players should rely more on the playerbase, not the server. If someone gets picked to be refunded, they will assume this will happen again and again. Creating a server reliant loop. I have not ignored you at all. I've responded to everyone of your posts in the same response that I've continually given. I'm not ignoring any of your points, in fact, I've taken into account and accept your idea of a less server-reliant playerbase with a lower chance. But instead, you make up irrational points that make no sense nor did I ever say, so before you make accusations at me, make sure you know what you're talking about.

 

1+ this will help so much I do loans to make most of my money and get scammed a lot it is very hard and with this little hope it would really help

 

Gtfo..

 

This worthless arguing is going nowhere fast. Why not do a "test run" for a month or a few weeks and see what happens. If its bad- get rid of it, if its good- leave it. Simple as that. Everyone here is just speculating and no one really knows s#!t about what will really happen if this suggestion becomes a reallity. And in the end what is the worst that can happen if we give this thing a month? A few players will get their money back and lotto will have 5% extra tax for a while. Not that big of a deal is it?

 

Did I not suggest this already?

 

+1 great idea clou!!

 

I totally agree she always has the best ideas

 

If you did I missed it. Sorry!

 

+1 I like the charity medal and it reminds me of the Expensive Rare Ecc Medal and its just one more medal to shoot for. But it also does go to a good cause in the case that it helps users out and can make a difference in their Ecc lives.

 

Another advantage - scammers would not have to feel any remorse or pain since the victim would be compensated by the server. Ban Appeals would be much simpler - My victim was paid back and I want to play again b/c I miss ECC. ;)
On a serious note, would the recent multiple victims of a now infamous scammer each get compensated a percentage or would it have to go to someone not even involved with that situation?

 

-1, I know scanming makes people upset/sometimes quit, but it's their own fault for not taking screen shots/trusting a specific user Ingame