You don't address my point of the people rejecting the system, and you are wrong currently inflation hasn't wrecked the economy and if nothing changes it shouldn't either. Inflation is currently a risk and a threat, a real one, but not something that is currently in the course of happening in the scale where it would destroy the economy. Besides Clou is right we should get back on topic, if you want to suggest this go ahead.

 

I'll do my best to address some of the points here.

I'm not completely sure what this means because it's a little confusing. If someone is alt accounting it really doesn't change the effect it has on the victims as oppose to a regular scam, so I am confused by what your concern here is. If you are talking about players abusing the system what would happen is if the scammer appeals he would pay money to the fund that paid money as confiscation to the scammer instead of the scammed this way it can't really be abused.

This is one of the things I've considered and I have thought about, but the thing is how the money will be distributed is not yet decided and there are some ideas that could fight this concern.

There was a part of this suggestion that gave players an option to donate to the fund.

Anything I didn't answer was because I really could not answer because I didn't have the info needed or it was just your opinion.

 

Two wrongs do not make a right my friend.

 

In this case it does

 

So everyone who has ever been banned for scamming can not be trusted and you should not trade with them and deserve to be slandered driving them away from the server. Publicly saying someone shouldn't and can't be trusted isn't a warning, yeah it's slander and it's an insult. What if someone fails to pay a loan but had no intentions of scamming, should they be labeled as someone who shouldn't be trusted. When he "bashes" on other people ideas it's usually because he has valid reasons to think the suggestion should not be done. Is he always right, no, however he provides a different point of view which is crucial to suggestions.

 

The difference is those suggestions blatantly cause inflation. The all want to solve the same issue, the difference is the plan they give to solve the issue. This suggestion, unlike many others, provides a plan that doesn't cause inflation.

 

Its a tag only for 2 months and its applied when someone intentioanlly scammed. Its not forever and for everyone who just failed to pay on time.

 

How do you define an intentional scam. How can you be certain about someones intentions. Two bad months of slander and harassment is more than enough to drive someone away from the server. Again this has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUGGESTION. If you think this should be done feel free to make a new suggestion.

 

No, never will two wrongs make a right. I can't even begin to respond as to why you're idea is contradictory to the rules, and just a dumb idea to begin with.

 

As long as scammers/griefers are on ECC evrything should be permited to drive them away. You shouldn't harm other people if you are not prepared to be harmed.

 

People change. Scammers and griefers often act the way they do due to immaturity. Immature people mature. Driving away these people drives away people who can grow and better themselves to productive members of ECC. We also need as many members as we can get driving away members in general is bad. You are ignoring my points and just pressing your flawed logic forward. Think about it.

 

To protect those who don't care about others just because the server needs people? Thats great lets do it! I will search for more a-holes on the internet lets hope they mature or else we are screwed. How about those who scam over and over again? When will they "mature"? 2-3 years? If someone messes up 2-3 times they should be gone forever. Yes some people can't pay their loans on time because of some reason beyond their control and in that case I agree they should get another chance and not be labled as scammers, but those who have been banned multiple times for this have no place here and we don't owe them the luxury to wait for them to mature.

 

But it creates a server reliant playerbase. Until they can get off their feet without the help of others, they'll never succeed. Let's put it this way. A builder asks me for $15k for Resident. That builder that I bought resident now starts begging for Mayor. The cycle will continue. Players that get scammed and refunded will become reliant on the server, rather themselves. This is what happened with welfare, and there's no way to stop the cycle until the suggestion is stopped. It's not a good idea. (Sorry to go all political there).

Well that's a radical move. Though I really, really disagree with this suggestion, it's an effort to keep people here. You're idea is that anyone that [mod edit] up should be gone and not be let back on. The one idea that I like about this suggestion is that it is an effort to keep people here, though ineffectively. But you're just telling everyone that they're wrong and that if you scam you shouldn't be allowed back on, ever. That's more ineffective than this suggestion, and that's saying something.

 

I also said people can get 2-3 shots at making things right but if they fail- better luck in the next server.

 

You are again ignoring a lot of my points. You have give NO answer to how do we determine someones intentions. You have given NO answer to how we decipher people who fail to pay loans from people with intentions of scamming. You aren't even arguing about the same topic I am. This suggestion is about a way to relieve what happens to the scammed not what happens if someone scams 2-3 times. We have the ban appeal process and the temp ban process to attempt to make people learn their lesson and make them change. I never said we owed them anything but purposefully harassing them and slandering them in order to drive them away from the server is just wrong. What you are suggesting with the tag encourages slandering and harassing users.

 

No, that's not how it works. Yeah, scamming sucks, but you have to understand, we can't just perma them. Until an SA+ says this is enough, they can keep appealing. You don't have to do business with them. That's all you need to do. It's on you to figure out who and who not to deal with. Scammers will be scammers, but we have no right just to "kick them to the side" and not deal with them anymore. That will make us look weak.

 

Explain to me what this has to do with the suggestion.

You argue this makes users server reliant, but the example you give with the builder is an example of player reliance. This suggestion isn't a welfare system. I won't lie it has a few similarities, if this suggestion gave just gave people money for no reason this would be a valid point, but this suggestion doesn't put them in a better place it puts them where they were previously. If the server gave them money that they previously didn't have this would be an issue, but that's not the case. For these people to be scammed they have to have something to lose it. To get that something they likely had to learn how to make money by themselves. This means for players to be scammed they already know how to be independent from the server and how to make money on their own. There is no cycle because 1. There is not a 100% guarantee to get your money back. 2. There is no reason to want to repeat what you just went thought. 3. See 1 and 2, stop and think about it.

 

Taking those people back every time makes us look weak. If someone shows no signs of permament change after he/she got a few chances they should be perma banned. More people are driven away by scammers than we will lose after we perma ban the repeat offenders.

 

You see, that's my point. Why should we help 1 person out of the 10 let's say scammed. It eventually becomes ineffective to the point where people will give up on the system, and lose hope. It's just not an effective way to solve this crisis.

Permanent bans are temp bans for a prolonged period of time. No one is truly ever "Permanently Banned".