1.That's not what you argued you directly said "Don't let scammers come back"
2. All you even adressed was my first point in my first argument, as it stands there are 2 more points you didn't and 2 more arguments you didn't.
3. Negative effects? As it stands, because you haven't adressed most of my points we have scammed not getting paid back, a MAJOR add on to the staff to do list that is already very full, and discouraged player to player trade, and making stuff like auctions, erepairs and trades a major pain in the ass. On top of that overall ineffectiveness. This wouldn't solve the issue of scamming entirely or nearly.
4. We're not "clinging to old people" in fact this suggestion is kinda aiming at newer users that would benefit more from this suggestion.

Really you want some proof? Provide some evidence that any of what you said has a remote chance of happening, it would work even if it did happen, and oh yeah why we shouldn't have this suggestion.

 

I can't state why it shouldn't happen because it offended clou before. That's my reasoning. And I'll post the rest later as I'm going to church.

 

Well I wasn't really asking you the point was to twist what dragon was saying so yeah, but whatever if I am correct what you said that offended Clou before was basically welfare was bad and this system shouldn't happen because it's like welfare. This system isn't like welfare the only similarity is that both seek to help people when they get knocked down.

 

I did not state welfare is bad. If you took it that way, that wasn't my meaning. What I was trying to say is the people that sit on their couch and have free money coming into their hands is not what should happen. Those people become lazy, and kill the system. However, yes, there are some people that need it for certain reasons and I respect that. But, the amount of people in the real world that take advantage of the system is too many, hence why the same would be done here most likely.

 

When I said you said welfare was bad it isn't meant to be exactly what you said it's meant to be a summary. Essentially what you are saying is welfare is bad, because it creates dependence and laziness. Again there really isn't any link between this system and welfare. This system doesn't create dependence and it doesn't give people any more money than they started with so they won't gain anything so they won't depend on the system.

 

You can't really "take advantage" of this system as has been adressed multiple times before.

 

That's not my point. My point is that people are going to sit on their ass and receive compensation when they shouldn't at all. That's the is all of the end all. Yes, some people need it, but as can be seen in the real world, it doesn't have the greatest of effects to all. The government included.

 

You're kidding me right? Welfare gives out money to those unemployed, disabled, and so forth. It creates a system of government dependence, causing laziness. A major factor to the jobs report in the United States is people giving up on looking for a job. They're not included in the jobs report. For the most part, all of those people receive welfare. Are you seeing the connection?

People depend on the system as a safety net. So if they do in fact get scammed, they will most likely get their money back. Therefore, dependence on the fund.

 

"the amount of people in the real world that take advantage of the system is too many, hence why the same would be done here most likely." Thus your point: We shouldn't have this system because people will simply take advantage of it. For your comparison for people "sit on their ass and receive compensation" to work people have to be gaining something. No one is going to want to use a system that doesn't have a chance of giving them something, but has a chance of them not losing something. You don't seem to understand this. Your comparison would be valid if people gained something from this system, but they aren't gaining anything, they just might not lose anything. That's where your logic falls apart. I have told you this multiple times but you don't seem to understand. In fact you don't seem to understand anything anyone has told you that is contrary to your own opinion. You only seem to agree when people say something you like regardless of it's truth. This isn't about if welfare is bad, the system has some issues but thats not what I'm debating here. There is no link from paying people something they lost to paying people who need money.

 

I worded that incorrectly. I meant to say "they sit on their ass and do nothing, and receive money in return". I'll reiterate this again, yes, they earned the money, but used it recklessly. Therefore, this dumb safety net increases the variable chance of reckless trade, as there will be money in return.

"If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for milk". I rest my case.

 

Nope dead serious. Notice how I have given no opinion about welfare being good or bad, I am simply stating your opinion and your stance on it. If that is what you believe good for you I couldn't really care much less. My argument here isn't whether welfare is good or bad. My argument here is that welfare has no link to this suggestion. Welfare is a system that pays people who need money. THEY ARE GAINING SOMETHING. In this suggestion they aren't gaining anything. THEY JUST HAVE A CHANCE OF NOT LOSING SOMETHING. No one will depend on a system that doesn't promise them any gain but just might save them from a loss. I have told you this many times but it doesn't seem anything you don't want to hear gets through to you.

 

See above post.

 

You believe in welfare people "sit on their ass and do nothing" heads up you're probabally going to piss off a lot of people, but I really don't care about your opinion on welfare. At all. This system isn't about welfare. "If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for milk". We aren't giving the mouse anything. We are helping people with something they lost and they aren't gaining anything.

 

I saw your above post read my post again because you haven't adressed half of it you just ignored the points.

 

Clearly, you are yet to read my post thoroughly, because not once did I say welfare was that way entirely. I said that people need welfare, how yes, some people should receive compensation. So, read what I posted. I will address all of you points now.

1. Good, I never asked for your opinion, even though you've basically handed it to me on a silver platter.
2. I don't care what you think of me. I'm not welcome here, but that doesn't bother me, right?
3. I'm not arguing if welfare is good or bad, I'm making a real world example.
4. Welfare is gaining, I'll give you that. Do some people need it? Without a doubt. However, the people that give up on looking for jobs because of the free money, not only hurts the economy, but the government itself. Think of it this way, if we give people free money, as this is exactly what this is, will they feel the need to work much harder for their money? No, because it's a risk reward system. If I give a $100,000 to a user, for $125,000 back in 2 weeks, and get scammed, I get my money back, and lose nothing. If I do get paid back, I make an easy $25k with no work. It creates an endless cycle of a lazy workforce, with free money.
5. Tell me this, does the server support the loaning of tools on money out to other users? Do they support the buying of features from other users? Answer that, then come back to me.
6. 50%+ is a pretty damn good chance at a refund, and I'd take that any day. Any sane person would.
7. People depend on lotto as income, why not this, given it's a lottery at best as well.

I have one question for all you "pro people" on this suggestion. What does it say on the top of the website? Tell me, then chat, because you'll understand the major contradiction this suggestion.

 

In real life, being a US citizen, this is my point of view completely. But the secondary point made here is that the reason welfare exists is because a large amount of people wanted (some needed but aside from disability getting paid to not work is dumb) it. So if this gains support, as ECC isn't necessarily a democracy, then it's really up to the push on the high rankers of the server that will make it through. Again I specifically edge my support to a guided strictly regulated refund system where as all refunds after the new system go into effect (or may some before that for example banned players) will be regulated by a standardized form of risk assessment. The only downside to the stricter way is a less of a safety towards low rank lending. If I wanted a loan currently in-game I may have a higher chance than a builder but definitely harder.

Edit: Before replying (if you happen to check my profile age) please don't spam garbage because I'm young and sterotypically shouldn't have opinions of my national government.

 

Actually, from my point of view the "If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for some milk" is existent you're giving the people a safety net for lending which may lead to people asking for welfare in other areas. An example could be welfare for greif or lowered requirements for rollback requests or maybe it might be in some other form. If we have a safety net it must be strictly regulated and made sure that any questions about it are cleared up because currently no one has any idea on how it would actually work.

 

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

If people ask for welfare in other areas it isn't really difficult to say no so that's not really an issue. People asking for more change if we give them this is really not a reason to not do this. If this is implimented a statement by Phys would probably be given to clear up gray areas and make it clear what this does and doesn't do.

 

Well, then that needs to be addressed, because it's been danced around the entire time. And who knows, you make crack, the once said, "uncrackable" knears.