As a person who has been recently scammed over 700k, yes plz.

 

And it's also speculation that this suggestion would actually be practical as well. I'll point this out again, people snipe lotto because chances are, they will win. The same can be said about this.

 

No I got exactly what you're saying I asked if your new argument is saying that more than 50% of scammed money returned is too much and it would cause people to take an increased amount of risks. Then you're saying this would cause people to get scammed more. Realalisticly yeah this could happen to some extent, however your impacts are overblown this won't create a "monster of scamming". The problem with this is it's all based on assumptions. There is no way to know what will happen until it's done. Therefore I say we test this for a week or two and see how it goes.

 

First he said that if there isn't a 51% minimum refund rate the system is pointless and it wont work. Now 50% is way too much and people are going to get scammed more because they might be refunded. Now that looks too me like a person who argues for the sake of arguing with no real intention to accept any ideas and changes. And if that is not the case what is the problem?

 

It's known as someone not liking an idea because it will cause issues. That's what. I'm changing my standpoint because I've been doing more an more investigating, that's what. Clou took away my main argument, so I have to change. That's what.

 

Just saw this suggestion now and have been glancing over the pages of feedback.
While I may be a little bit biased since I did just get scammed 700k, I think that $50 less a ticket into the pot would be absolutely nothing to the rest of ECC and if that $50 goes to scammed players, awesome :D
I'm all for this suggestion, even just testing it out for a weekend on the server.

Just for fun, I did /lot winners and found that in the past 10 lottos (all between 5,100 and 66,300 in the final pot) that this fund would have generated $15,750 at $50 a ticket. Sure, it isn't a whole lot but that's better than nothing for scammed players and that was in the past 10 lottos during, what I think to be, a very low activity time for lotto.

+1

 

Just a couple points I'd like to throw into the shark tank (not quite sure if they've been thrown out in the previous 26 pages but here we go).

A. Some incentive to donate on a regular basis.
Charity medals seem like a good idea but I fear that they'd eventually work out like our current Diamond/Emerald/Netherstar Collector medals; people who both could afford and want the medal would get it (likely fairly soon after its release) and very very rare purchases afterwards that really won't be of much help in the long run. A one-off purchase is not a sustainable source of income. Perhaps make the medal cheaper (50k - 100k?) and run it on a subscriber basis (if you don't keep paying you don't keep keeping). Perhaps offer some sort of perk you could subscribe for.

B. Base Compensation Off Of Risk Assessment
A major point has been that this will offer a 'saftey net' leading to careless loaning. Why not then create some sort of rubric to determine a risk of any particular deal, and if your deal is determined to be 'too risky' or 'careless' you won't have any chance at compensation. It would reward those who loan/trade safely and chastise those who don't.*

*An obvious flaw is that this could potentially lead to systematic discrimination against lower ranked/recently banned/non-supporter/new players in that people won't trade as these deals would be viewed by the system as more risky and therefore resulting in essentially server-sponsored discrimination.

 

No! You shouldn't get a reward for doing charity. I am absolutely against that. If you want to do charity, that's fine. But none of this "get and receive" stuff. It should be about the act of giving; not expecting something in return.

 

I don't know what rewards are you talking about but if you mean the medals I really can't see them as rewards because they serve no practical use. If someone is doing charity just for the medal it doesn't matter as long as it helps others so I can't see the problem here. The reason doesn't matter only the results.

 

If a had a nickle for every time I've lost money to loan defaulters... (who according to the rules of contracts are banned for scamming if they breach a loan contract) I'd be doing great. If this was made a system it would work and prevent inflation because it recycles spent lottery money, "tax", and gives it to people who deserve it. Although getting rid of the big 100k scams would be hard the small scams done to new players could be washed away at a decent pace which can't un-benefit the server. My only how you put it "piggyback suggestion" to this suggestion is that if a banned player (who was banned for scamming/breaching contracts monetarily) returns to the server, is that the money they pay as a refund deal should should go directly to the fund for other scammers assuming the person they specifically scammed has been payed back in full with recycled lottery tax.

 

Please explain how it would be rewarding. FYI here in the US of A local state lottery money that isn't given out as winnings or to the people running the lottery is given to the State as a form of income which includes it's possibility of being spent as welfare.

 

I made a post about this and here is my suggestion for you to contemplate:

 

I like this idea but if we had "credit scores" per say it would make loaning to residents and under almost impossible. If we did have this rubric I would like to make sure that before it goes into effect that we mark down all loans made before it so that pre-rubric deals can stay eligible for the welfare of the lottery tax.

 

My response to the 20+ posts of "it will cause reckless lending "
It will and that's bad but if a builder can't get a loan that's bad for the economy. While I wouldn't lend to a banned player I've lent to multiple builders/residents. Although my chances of getting payed back were slim I did it because they had no real negative reputation aside from them being "noobs". So I encourage pro-builder loans but banned player loans shouldn't be 1st priority refunds in my book.

 

Well I'm sure most people will donate for the sake of helping people and the medal is almost like an added bonus. However there probabally are a few people who will get it for the medal and see helping people as an added bonus. In both cases the donations still do good they provide funds for the scammed even if someone doesn't have the best motivation

 

I don't understand this at all. Why don't you guys prevent scamming instead of all this? It makes no sense!

 

If you have an idea on how to do that please make a suggestion. I am certainly looking forward to getting rid of scammers.

 

Because scamming will always be an issue and can never be completely eradicated, because as long as people think they can get away with it and that they are above the rules people will scam and break the rules. There is nothing we can do to control what people think therefore scamming will always be an issue. This means there will always be people who are victims of scamming, there will always be people who need help because of scamming and this suggestion offers that help.