I'd like to restart a suggestion that seems good IMO, so here's the full post. Thanks to @Revanrose6 for making the suggestion!
Minecraft Name: Revanrose6
Suggestion: I'm going to begin this with the following statement: I am not even sure I agree with this idea; I am putting it out there to see the pros and cons (Something our community is great at producing).
So onto the idea. Give major scammers a probationary period.For how long? Well there are two ways we can go on that one: 1) Until the money is repaid. 2)For a set period of time.
What does this probationary period mean? No lotto. No transactions worth over $10,000 without a moderator being aware and present. No rule breaking (Minor rule breaking might be passable simply because if we added it to the three strike system the probation would not work. Everyone would just be banned.) It also means that there would be a three strike system. Break probation once, get a mark. Twice, another mark. Thrice and you are back to being banned.
How would we implement this? Each player who is deemed 'up for probation' upon appealing their ban would get assigned a probation officer. This officer would be a supermod+. Any player/staff who witnesses this probationary player breaking a rule from his/her probation (which should be outlined in the appeal) can PM his/her probation officer with evidence.
Reason: Keep scammers under watch and thus reduce future scams.
Thread Tools
Thread Tools
Page 1 of 3
-
UnitedStates2 BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️ Gameplay Architect Premium Upgrade
-
UnitedStates2 BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️ Gameplay Architect Premium Upgrade
Bump
-
TaylorBros22 ***Ex-EcoLegend***Mayor ⛰️⛰️ Ex-EcoLegend ⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ I ⭐ Premium Upgrade
- Joined:
- Jun 11, 2013
- Messages:
- 3,127
- Trophy Points:
- 85,160
- Gender:
- Male
- EcoDollars:
- $0
- Ratings:
- +2,223
This sounds really good. What if, to reduce the workload for the staff, the phrobation officers were players that had applied on the forums, and if rules were broken they were reported to this player and then this player could be responsible for giving out the "strikes" until the three strike mark has been reached, at which point the phrobation officer files a complaint to the staff. This way, staff would only have to deal with 1 complaint and not being there whenever the player wanted to make a transaction or deal with them if they broke the rules. Just a suggestion, but if done properly it could work!
-
silencedterror BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-Mayor ⚒️⚒️
-
TaylorBros22 ***Ex-EcoLegend***Mayor ⛰️⛰️ Ex-EcoLegend ⚜️⚜️⚜️⚜️ Prestige ⭐ I ⭐ Premium Upgrade
- Joined:
- Jun 11, 2013
- Messages:
- 3,127
- Trophy Points:
- 85,160
- Gender:
- Male
- EcoDollars:
- $0
- Ratings:
- +2,223
Player A is spamming characters in global chat. Staff A is Player A's friend. Staff A does nothing to try and stop this even though it has been going on for about 10 minutes. Player B then gets annoyed and says "Is anyone going to do anything about the spam?" to which Staff A does nothing. Knowing Staff A and Player A are friendly, Player B reports Staff A to Staff B and an official Staff complaint is made. Staff A is warned and told that he/she must not turn a blind eye to this, it is against the rules.
As you can see from my example there is always another person to catch you out. If it had to, possibly the player could be assigned two phrobation officers. I am unsure if I made it clear but the officers would have to apply through the forums, just like staff. They would maybe get a tag, for instance it may look a bit like this:
[G][$][President][Phrobation Officer]TaylorBros22:
Just a suggestion! -
silencedterror BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-Mayor ⚒️⚒️
Maybe that could work but I still don't see staff approving it because its gonna be just one more thing they will have to do. And even if they are not the probation officers they would still have to go through the applications and thats another hassle for them.
-
Jacob43365 EcoLeaderEcoLeader ⛰️⛰️⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️
People need to learn that they can't just break tons of rules and then appeal and get right back on the server to possibly to it again +1
-
bandgeek12345 BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-Mayor ⚒️⚒️
-1 people dont need to be babied. expecially if it takes up the time of a Smod+ to do so.. why punish our Smods for something that users do? the idea of no lotto would be ok because it can probably handled by a command of some sort.. the whole transaction thing is the bad part.
-
gcoleman118 BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-Mayor ⚒️⚒️
-
gcoleman118 BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-Mayor ⚒️⚒️
-
Agree x 1 - List
-
-
greg45865734 BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-Mayor ⚒️⚒️
One con is it makes it easier for users who owe money to be banned thus decreasing payback likeliness for the scammed.
-
silencedterror BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-Mayor ⚒️⚒️
-
Vintage_Gamer BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️ Premium Upgrade
This suggestion is crazy....
-
silencedterror BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-Mayor ⚒️⚒️
-
greg45865734 BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-Mayor ⚒️⚒️
-
Vintage_Gamer BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-President ⚒️⚒️ Premium Upgrade
There is already a three strike type system with staff.
Players shouldn't be breaking rules anyway.
We shouldn't be babying people wither who break rules and scam people. If anything, it will encourage it. -
silencedterror BuilderBuilder ⛰️ Ex-Mayor ⚒️⚒️
The three strike system is just a lie, there are plenty of players with 3+ offences still playing.
Players shouldn't break the rules but they are and they will keep doing so.
Its not babying people its controlling them. If they can't control themselfs someone else should. The way scammers are currently treated is babying.-
Winner x 1 - List
-
Page 1 of 3