It's different because:

1. There is no choosing who gets a rollback and who doesn't. There is a clear cut line to who does and who doesn't, whereas this would not have such a thing- someone could be an ideal choice one week, but not the next. Rollbacks are not selective beyond their requirement, it's almost guaranteed.
2. Consistency- the amount of money for this is inconsistent, where rollbacks don't shift. If you lost less money than the requirements, no rollback. There is no requirement with this, if I read correctly.
3. Occurence- warranting grief for rollbacks is rare or at least uncommon. Scamming is common.

 

Those are totally different concepts. The ideas behind those are different. That's a radical argument. That's like saying, "If you are against gun control, you're for the killing of millions of people, and you should be jailed". That's basically what you just said. I'm not against rollbacks, I'm against the reimbursement of a scam victim. AgentHare summed up exactly what I wanted to say.

 

Please note I said "rollback warranting grief"

What you just listed is good; a way to narrow down who gets what. That's why I said "almost guaranteed" of course it would not happen all the time, but considering how rare rollback warranting grief is, it happens often enough. Really, with rollbacks its more obvious. A large house of diamond? Rollback. Destruction of a wheat farm? No.

 

That would need to be addressed now then. That's what I've been trying to figure out the entire time. How the players are to be picked without bias. There is yet to be a solution, other than Mendi's WIP solution, which we're not sure if it works either.

 

I posted one far back in the thread

 

Also, why can't we just liquidate the scammers assets?

 

Would the list of players scammed start from the beginning of the implementation of this thread? Or refresh every so often?

Randomizing the players still would lead people to believe bias. But it's better than an application, I'll give you that.

 

@knears2000 are you talking about a moral hazard

(Generally in economics a moral hazard is when the gov will bail out a person or company, so the company/person will take massive risks because they know they will get bailed out)

 

And no list, that is almost guaranteeing people to get payed back. Just use the list I suggested and don't do it to every victim and I'm fine

 

Yes, that's what I'm referring to.

 

Let's face it. We all know $100,000 is fairly easy to come up with for most players. What if there was a $100,000 scam minimum that would warrant payment via this suggestion?

 

@clou44 you seem to be avoiding my question

Why can't we just liquidate the scammers assets?

 

What i they dont have any assets, thats the problem.

 

Why wouldn't they?