Simple. Change the way staff handles people in debt. This is how it should be: the user who loaned them first should be paid back first. Examples: Scammer A takes a 500k loan from Player B on feb 15 2016 due the 10th of March Scammer A takes a 240k loan from Player c on March 1st 2016 due the 7th of March. Player C files a complaint on the 7th of March then gets scammer A banned. Player B then files the complaint and when he appeals will get his money back. The dumb way it works now is whoever files the complaint first gets the money paid back first, so it would be like this. scammer A appeals and pays back Player C first, then Player B, If this system was what it should be, Player B should be paid back first since they gave the loan first and were away from their own money for the longest.
Instead of giving the money to who waited the longest, we should be giving the money to who had the earliest payback per the agreement - If everything went well, these people would've been paid back first regardless. I do agree that the current system needs to be changed though - It makes no sense to favor who filed a complaint first, instead of who is supposed to be paid back.
I mean I know people who have been waiting 8 months for a loan but their payback date keeps getting pushed back when the person appeals and keeps on taking more loans, which get them banned. Your theory is flawed, mine would not be.
I don't care about set paybacks by staff - Those aren't what's going to be changed here anyway. What I'm talking about is the original payback via the player contract - If someone has the earliest set pay-back via the agreement, they are naturally entitled to the money first. I'm not in favor of a policy that entitles who waited the longest to the money first, as the amount of time one has to pay back a loan widely varies due to interest, size, risk and other factors.
ok i understand if we only talk about THE ORIGINAL PAYBACK, not the staff new payback then i think we are almost similar in our thought process.
Yes, I am talking about the original payback. The problem with your suggestion, as I pointed out, is that you have the person who waited the longest be paid back first, instead of the person who'd naturally be paid back first if there wasn't a scam in the first place.
Whenever I'd handle large scamming cases I'd run a /seen of everyone owed and set paybacks based on activity, the logic being the most active players having the most immediate need for the money and least active players the least need. Of course it'd basically be a bit random on those who are regularly active, but it makes it so somebody who hasn't logged in for months won't delay active people getting their money. Smaller cases I'd tend to just work things out for nice payment timelines. Typically I'd favor a smaller debt before a larger one, because if there are 2 debts, one that takes 6 weeks to pay and one that takes 1 week to pay, I'm only pushing the larger debt back by 1 week as opposed to pushing the smaller one back 6 weeks. Overall I was most focusing on what works out the best for a given situation. Obviously I'm not the one who sets these payment guidelines now but the fact it's up to GA discretion means it's their responsibility to find a way that works out as well as possible for everyone involved. I don't think a firm rule is good for that.
-1 I think nicit has the right of it. And besides, wouldn't this whole thing be covered by just reporting your overdue debts in a timely manner? Sitting around on some truant debt and randomly reporting it later but still wanting paid first because yours was technically first both makes no sense I don't see why that needs to be supported. Seriously just file the complaint as soon as you are fed up and you'll be handled in a timely fashion when the moderation sets up the payment plan.
With your perspective I can definitely understand the intent here a lot better. Thank you. That certainly is not an ideal process. With that in mind I retract my -1. However I think a much more effective and even dynamic/interesting way of preventing this would be to implement a system on ecc that would serve the same as the credit bureaus do in the real world. That is to inform potential lenders of the assets a user has as well as the existing loans and credit the user already has out. I see situations with loan scamming exactly like yours that go from trusted user with spotless record to 40 car pile up level debt disasters in less than a week. If there were a way that players could determine how much outstanding debt a user has, they would likely refuse the loan and the user would simply have to work hard to pay off the debt. I plan to make a real suggestion for it when I have time on how this could be implemented. It would help this issue and others and even add a new layer to the economy gameplay. Badges for for perfect score etc.
Not a silly question, it's totally vaild Previously, I didn't feel any need to talk to the staff as it wasn't a problem at the time. It just became a little frustrating after the recent wave of complaints and extensions being given willy-nilly. If that's my best option, I'd be more than happy to take it to them (there has been multiple staff members handling complaints and appeals, so I have no real clue of who might be in charge of it at the moment).
Alright, let's give a bit more detail on this situation mentioned above. So I filed this complaint here in the hopes I could get higher on the payback list; it's what's happened in the past for the appeals, might as well try. The response I get: "Please wait until the extension has expired April 6th as stated in the last appeal." Alright, doesn't seem unreasonable at first glance. But, let's take a look at where this loan would sit in the grand scheme of things. My Loan Timeline June 6th, 2015 --> 500k loan given, 650k payback expected on July 1st. ~July 1st, 2015 --> Extension given due to lack of time. Sept 14th, 2015 --> First complaint filed, user banned Sept 15th. Nov 12th, 2015 --> First appeal, deadline reset to Dec 29th, 2015. Mid-Dec 2015 --> User banned for 3 other reported loans, waited until deadline to file complaint. Dec 29th 2015 --> Second complaint filed, added to ban reason. Jan 13th 2016 --> User's second appeal, Deadline reset to April 1st Jan 18th 2016 --> Extenuating circumstances with a name change edits deadline to April 6th Feb 16th 2016 --> User banned for miscellaneous loans; complaint filed, told to refile after deadline in April So as it stands, I have to wait until April to file. However, 3 complaints have been filed already ahead of myself by three other users, and there are at least 3 more to come. They are as follows: 20k for 30k payback (0 paid) 25k in 16 hours (0 paid) 60k for 75k payback (0 paid) 200k for 300k payback (125k paid) 100k for 125k payback (0 paid) and then myself - 500k for 650k (65k paid) This doesn't count the miscellaneous loans that will probably pop here within the next couple weeks. Now, if we think about the order of payback, I went from first (and only one), to 4th, to now 6th or potentially lower on the ladder. I'm now deadlocked by the April 6th date, whether I like it or not. So, no matter what happens in the next two months, I'm completely SOL on filing or getting the deadline on the record. If he appeals, everyone else will get a chance to be payed first (as they filed before) and I have to sit and pray to all things that I am addressed before another ban. So now, I'll be waiting 10 months to even have a remote chance at my money again, and that doesn't count how far out the deadline will be extended when I refile the complaint. So it may be a full year before my loan is the only one, and there's no guarantee on that either. So, I figure I better propose something instead of creating a pity-party (because I'm really not trying to, I'm merely stating the situation I'm in). ~Payback determined by length of time waited - similar to matrix: When a user appeals, the GA+ handling the appeal will investigate the time since the loan was given, and evaluate how each loan should be payed back based on the time they have waited and the size of the loan (at discretion). ~Allow users to file complaints for loan scamming at any time after the user is banned - This may be a bit more difficult, but can be done. One staff member, after claiming the complaint via the communication system, can either create a thread for multiple staff to watch or a private list noting the payback size and time of the loan. As more complaints are filed on the user, the staff member says something like: "Noted for future appeal", and edits it into the thread. That way, when a GA+ handles the appeal, the list of all loans, due and overdue, is present, and can be addressed. For example: Title: [Loans] User A Username - Loan/Payback - Overdue/Not yet Due - Date User B - 20k for 30k payback, overdue, mm/dd/yyyy User C - 25k in 16 hours (0 paid), overdue, mm/dd/yyyy User D - 60k for 75k payback (0 paid), overdue, mm/dd/yyyy User E - 200k for 300k payback (125k paid), overdue, mm/dd/yyyy User F - 100k for 125k payback (0 paid), not yet due, User G - 500k for 650k (65k paid), not yet due TL;DR Despite reporting in a timely fashion, I'm still locked at the bottom due to my loan size. Now we're 8x the payback time originally and very little to show for it. And, I can't charge any late fees because we "never had that originally." A change in protocol about how scamming appeals and complaint filing for debts could go a long way. P.S - I am not frustrated with the user in any way. He was trusted before I gave the loan, and still remains trusted after. I have full faith he will pay this off, eventually. Where the frustration lies is in how I'm still at the bottom of the loan heap while I've waited the longest.
