Dont forget about crazy lottos if we do a a couple on the day we could help raise a lot more

 

If there a charity medal, may I suggest different tiers? We could do similar colors as the subscriber medals and have 250k as first medal, 500k more as second medal, and 1mil as 3rd medal. That means, this would have a total cost of 1.75m for all the medals. I see more money being donated to the fund this way over a single 1m medal.

 

Hi Clou,

Just wanted to say that I think your idea is brilliant and should definatly be implemented! I was just looking through the ban appeals section and saw that many people were being banned as they were scamming people, and I think that helping out the victims of the terrible deed is a good thing.

I agree with @dumdum71 in regards to the different tiers of medals, however I think that the 1st medal should be of a lower cost, something in the region of 40k-65k as it gives people such as myself a chance to help those that have been affected, but cannot afford the massive cost of 250k.

Good luck in getting this implemented,

Taylor
P.S. I have not read all the replies (there's too many :p) so I apologise if someone has suggested a tier that costs less.

 

Nope, you're the first :p.

Not only do I disagree with this suggestion, a lower tier medal such as that is incredibly low. Everyone would have it, and point of medals is so that they're rare, it would become too common. Start a charity fund yourself for the people with less amounts of money so you can help. I've suggested that too many times, yet this has to be "server run". I really don't know why.

 

The point of medals isn't their rarity. The point of medals is to give a reward/status for something someone has done on the server. 45-60k isn't necessarily that small of a price and most people don't really have an extra 60k laying around, but let's pretend you're right. Lets pretend the medal would become "too common". Awesome. That's 45-60k commonly coming in. That's plenty to help a lot of people. Then once it becomes common and people want a rarer medal so people will be inclined to donate more to charity. A charity fund would be everything you said this suggestion would be. Inefficient, biased and wouldn't get much done. Therefore this suggestion should be done as it proved a way that would help a lot of people and get more done than anyone could plus a server run system would draw out more donations than a player one because people are going to trust the server with money a lot more than they are gona trust players and they know the server will make better use of it.

 

I think that they should be 250k minimum for the medal. I'm sure you can always donate without getting the medal. Maybe make some sort of leaderboard that shows amount donated by each person and when the user reaches 250k they can apply for the medal. This way, you can donate a little at a time[emoji2]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

True what about a 250k or so total of donations meaning you can donate whatever you want but you get a medal when your donations reach 250k

 

If I understood you correctly, that is what I meant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Sorry I missed something you said but yeah its pretty much the same thing.

 

And this is exactly what I wanted to avoid. This is a "government practice". Clou, I'm sorry, but that's what this has turned into. Reckless trade is what it is going to be. Heed to my warnings.

 

Your warnings have been heeded to. You can leave now.

 

Ok then? I'm basing my information off of Dewsy's post.

Ok, so, we would be able to help possibly 25% of the players that got scammed that week, assuming we choose December 13th, right? The Crazy Lotto, (I would like testing done for this as well) would make at least $100k I would think. There we go, $600k in the pot. Now, if we go off of the small donations of $50k, I would think we could get two of those a week, making the pot a staggering $700k. Clou suggested that we do two drawings a week, so if we were to do another crazy lotto, that would be $800k, and then another $400k from the 10th. Woah, we're already at $1.2 million. That would help over 50% of the users, making my majority point valid, yes? Disregard that, because I didn't realize what actually would happen. If we continue to give out to the majority, people would be less inclined to make "good deals", and begin trading recklessly due to the fact that there's over $1.2 million in the pot. Scamming complaints will increase, making the amount of people that are able to helped drop. It's allowing people to have a safety net that shouldn't be there. These numbers are realistic, in fact, they could even be more, but who knows. This "safety net" idea will only increase an already nightmarish amount of scamming on ECC.

 

P

1. Notice how your idea changes as your last argument gets proven wrong. 2. For people to benefit from this system they have to take precautions to their money so no matter what their trade isn't exactly "reckless". 3. Sayinf this will promote reckless trade is like saying seat belts promote car crashes. You have to take certian precautions for both to work, no one wants what they help protect to happen and in the end result both have a chance to save you but no guaremtee. 4. While I'm sure a few people will have the mindset you say they will a majority of people will be smart enough to know they shouldn't rely on the system. Therefore the effect this will have on people "recklessly" trading isn't going to drastically increase.

 

1. My argument was never proven wrong. I changed my mindset due to me realizing that the system would never actually achieve the necessary amount of people to be helped, that's why I changed my argument, which I'm still standing by.
2. Did I not say that they would take certain precautions? Because I did. I was implying that people would take certain and unnecessary risks in trade. For example, giving a loan to Giant_Leader, someone who has been convicted of scamming on countless occasions. People would be more inclined to take less, well-thought out deals. That's what I was trying to say.
3. That's an awful analogy. People still have to take the precautions of gathering evidence, but they know that they will get their money back. It creates a higher risk of scamming to occur. If you though scamming was bad now, it will only get worse as this system is put in to effect.
4. People don't think that way. If 50%+ are being helped, they have a good chance of being refunded, therefore, they give out loans and get scammed. Correct? Here's a good analogy. People drop hundreds of thousands of dollars into lottery via "sniping", right? They very well know they could lose, but, they still play. The same can be said about this system. Is this going full-circle now?

 

This seems like a good idea me likey

 

:p

 

1. Basicly what you said here is the argument was never proven wrong you just ditched it because you realised it was wrong. 2. So you're saying before you said unless we have over 50% we won't help and now that we have over 50% it's too much?

 

You're yet to get my point. I'm trying to say that if it were to gain as much popularity as suggested here, it would create more scamming and reckless trade, as the amount of money given back would allow people to have a big chance of being paid back. That's what you're not understanding here. It's creating a monster of scamming.