Minecraft Name: @Gmoneyman118 Suggestion: That if a banned scammer still has money on forum or in-game it should be given back to those scammed in order of contract due date. Reason: So my idea for the suggestion box is a form of scam reclamation. Basically if you're scammed but the banned person still has money it will be sent to you and, if they appeal, will be deducted from the amount they were banned for failing to pay. Example: Jim scammed bob for 10k at the time of the ban Jim had 15k bob reclaims his 10k and when Jim appeals his amount has been payed but he has the disadvantage of losing that money and his stained permanent record. Even if the banned person only had 80% of the money it would still help the lender and keep the ECC economy going will a little less risk. While some say it may cause a tad of excess loaning there is still risk it just means if you have the paperwork like a contract you can justify why someone's account should be deducted. I also believe this should happen for forum accounts if a scammer keeps their money in there. This idea came to me after someone I loaned to was banned just 3 days after and I had loaned him a whopping 100k. As I'm sure he didn't spend it all I think it's a waste that he assuming he is perma-banned will hold money that rightfully belongs to me. I would definitely like to see both sides to this as I can think of no opposition. Please keep any debate clean! Link to Plugin: N/A
No, I haven't because I do my research. Does the U.S. Government repay you after you get scammed? No, because you need to learn from your mistake to prevent it from happening again. Why should this be any different.
I didn't say we should get re-payed and thanks for bringing up how the US government which does actually do what I am suggesting which is repossession of property and putting bank accounts on hold. My suggestion in a few sentences is : If the scammer still has cash ingame or on the forums it should be turned over to the people who it's owed to. Please read the suggestion thoroughly before commenting
Ok, the difference is, the community banded together to help those, not the administration, nor should the administration itself should help those scammed because when you give a mouse a cookie, it will probably ask for some milk.
So let's remove rollback requests and regurgitate that moose's lunch it had today because it's not the admin's problem to rebuild. Metaphors aside, the administration should help us if we have scammers and crooks and the easiest way is giving us the leftover not yet used fraudulently possessed items or in this case money which is very easy to move from account to account (or so I believe not knowing what it takes to do so but I think it's a matter of just simply moving it, which if easy, could help out a lot of people.).
Let's give a mouse a cookie and see what happens. Also, the government orders restitution, it doesn't pay it.
I never said ECC staff would pay anything I just said they could move it as they control the player accounts on the server or the equivalent of forced restitution. It will create $0 in new money (so no inflation) it would just move money from the fraudulent owner to the person it's owed to. This way if someone is scammed but their entire principal of cash is just waiting to be moved in the scammer's account it can be moved and keep this chugging along with an easily fixable problem with scammers gone.
You can't take money from someone's account and put it into another's. That's totalitarian, and just gives me a bigger reason to make illogical decisions. This is not at all good to solve scamming.
To reiterate my example: If Jim scams bob for 20k, never spends it and has it after he is banned, why can't bob just move it back to his account now that Jim is "detained" on the server.
If you have a better idea I would non-sarcastically love to know because this is the best I've got. And it's not guaranteed someone will have all the money taken so you may only get part of it if that's all they have but everything helps.
Because, it doesn't solve the problem and gives all the more reason to make bad trade decisions. No suggestion can effectively solve scamming after the fact, it needs to solve it before. Hence why I disagree with any suggestion that relates to this.
So are you calling loans a bad trade decision or scamming an unsolvable problem or both. As for why you always disagree I'm going to hope that's not blind, over-the-years-I've-learned voting and that you actually read the original post suggesting this.
What? Please rephrase as I don't understand the second half. As for the first, I'm not saying loans are bad trades, HOWEVER, people need to understand who to deal with. If they have a bad history, don't deal with them, if they are clean, you are more inclined in trading with them. Restitution is already required on ECC as well.
I've never seen this in effect please explain or link where it is explained. As for the second half of what I said I was asking if you actually read my suggestion or just went in to disagree after seeing it involved trying to fix scams.
I red it briefly, but didn't need detail to understand that it is against my ideologies. If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for some milk, it is inevitable and that's why you can't implement any repayment of scams effectively.
If you give a mouse a cookie, he'll ask for some milk I understand the idea of the metaphor but as preventing/fixing scams is hard and idea around it have many flaws explain its relation here.
People will begin to make "sketchy" trades knowing that chances are, they will get most, if not all of their money back from the trade, so there is no risk involved. Now they only get a small portion back, but, the user has gotten full restitution in the past. Now they want all the money back and begin begging the administration for it, now do you understand the correlation?
