I filed the complaint to work something out... LOOK. HE AGREED TO IT. THAT IS NOT MY FAULT. Next time, please just comment on the other complaint. I don't mind giving him lots of time. However I want my money because he agreed to it. That is not my fault and I am willing to cancel the complaint if he would just talk about it. While I wouldn't mind the user being banned, I would much rather attempt to work something out.

 

Sounds like this:

With a response:

How does this user have the ability to pay 925k in 2 weeks when he had been able to repay the original debt in over a month?

Surely that classifies under what you said:
"He clearly offered a predatory loan to Player A knowing that Player A would be desperate and agree. I highly doubt Player B had any intention of actually being repaid. To me this seems nothing short of encouraging Player A to scam him, which is illegal."

Yet this guy still got banned...

If he agreed to the loan and screenshots are timestamped and approved, surely its all legal?
This is also why you shouldnt be able to do contract ingame,
As in the heat of the moment you can simply misread something and get trapped into something that you dont know what you are getting yourself into.

 

Doesn't matter. Apparently it's my fault he can't read...

 

It's already been dealt with

 

So, first off let me apologize for posting on this complaint. Its not something I normally do.

Now, for my points.

Summary:
I see no wrongdoing by ldw116 in this complaint. The only thing he is guilty of is being an a** (sorry ldw) which last I checked isn't against the rules.

Reasoning:
The complaint on ldw is "Encouraging the player to break the rules". Your argument is that he knew that Noah would not be not be able to pay this back and therefore by loaning him he is encouraging him to break the rules. To be honest this to me seems rather ridiculous. He wasn't encouraging him to break the rules because 100% of the responsibility for taking that loan is on Noah. ldw didn't force him to take the loan.

It is sad these days how people are so willing to take advantage of one another through loans like this. This is true. However, people sign these ridiculous contracts and deals by themselves. Therefore, you cant go banning people who take advantage of them because they didnt actually do anything wrong. Perhaps the suggestion forum is the place to go if you think taking advantage of others should be bannable on ECC, but personally what I think is the following:

Abusing loans sucks, it isnt a nice thing for people to do. But if someone takes a loan it is their responsibility and no one elses. They should work hard, pay it back and learn something for the future.

-RyanBlocks2

 

This is honestly one of the weirdest situations I've seen on ECC in years. Look. It's not like ldw wasn't clear in the deal that he was making. Instead, he was very clear about the parameters of the loan. Although I see the staff team's reasoning regarding the late fees, I do feel that the full $250,000 should be repaid. And here is why.

• Noah fully understood the situation he was in.
• He wanted money quickly (to lotto of all things, as I understand), and wanted it in a quick time frame. The lack of liquidity isn't ldw's fault. Instead, it shows during Crazy Lottos, it is difficult to come up with large amounts of money. This makes sense. Everybody wants to spend their own, not loan it out.
• Noah is a high risk user to lend to. That is not a question. Paybacks should be higher coming from him in comparison to other users, like Nicit or Clarinet.

This is basic economics and risk. Low supply, high demand. Let me remind you, Noah was willing to take out this loan. He was in no way forced to borrow money. He is a risky user to lend to. With the combination of these two, I likely would have charged even more for a loan.

A close analogy would be on the day an individual's rent is due, he/she doesn't have the money. So that person needs a loan THAT DAY. In addition, this person has a history of default, and has bankrupted himself before.

In the real world, the bank/lender would be very cautious with this loan. They would charge extremely high rates and would likely require collateral. Both due to the time constraints and the risk of the loan. I would say ldw was perfectly within his rights to do this.

Blaming ldw would be like a bank giving a loan, and punishing the bank for the user not paying it back. Just ridiculous.


And to address Nicit's specific points.

How is that encouraging breaking the rules? This is a HARDCORE economy server. If somebody is willing to take the risk of such a dangerous loan, he or she should make a lot of money off of it. Encouraging a user to break the rules would require additional evidence, not simply the deal that was made. The fact that Noah only has to pay off $150,000 is honestly ridiculous, and I cannot fathom how that decision was reached. Although I understand the meaning behind it, if we wish to pride ourselves as hardcore, this is not a good way to do it.

If predatory loans were not allowed, you would be 100% correct. However, there are no rules against predatory loans. Something wrong in principle is not necessarily unlawful, especially when money, or fake money in this case, is involved. It isn't his fault, because he followed all of the rules of ECC.
And on the contrary, I do believe the fact that he agreed to it without question makes it okay. Not taking into account late fees (which seemed to be a last-second inclusion and I've been ignoring for the most of my comment), Noah fully understood what was coming. When I was starting on this server, I was taken economic advantage of many times. It's not illegal. It's capitalism.


If you think the use of predatory loans should be against the rules, I would likely support that notion. Of course, parameters for this sort of rule would be difficult to implement, but it could happen. But it isn't fair to punish a user for something that wasn't illegal at the time. And honestly, I would have done the same exact thing.

 

How do you know his intentions? Just as I am unsure of Noah's understanding, how can you know for sure ldw was solely giving this loan in order to get him banned? That is a statement without evidence. Unless I missed something, there wasn't any chat logs to show that ldw did it for the sole purpose of getting him banned.

We have a scamming problem because ECC is primarily kids. When Kick_me scammed all those users including myself, I was thankfully not blamed for that. I'm not sure I 100% understand what you're saying here, but I do agree that it should be more of a 2 way street. Here, I agree with your statement.

Just as you cannot back up the fact that ldw did this to get him banned. Not any different than my earlier statement.

Those only apply to individuals and families. Lots of loans would've broken the generally 25% maximum interest rate (using NY numbers) on ECC. So I'm not sure how accurately that addresses this situation. I would've broken these laws multiple times.

There is no evidence to show that ldw was intending to get him banned.

o_Oo_Oo_O This isn't an anarchy server. That seems like a bit of an overreaction in my opinion.

 

If this is a hardcore economy server, impossible loans are just as illegal as failing to repay your debts. It's disgusting behavior and it should absolutely be considered that the lender is scamming here. Using someone's desperation to coerce them into a literally impossible deal is not only morally corrupt, it is very much intentionally getting someone in trouble. It is a two way street when lending. Maybe because most of the players are kids and don't know better but in the real world lenders don't get to do whatever they want, bad loans are illegal and bad debts often do not have to repaid back. In fact the institution using bad lending practices suffers way worse than the person taking the predatory loan does. And moderation has dissolved other impossible requirements lenders have made up in other situations and have done so again now. But doing this sort of thing shouldn't just get the loan dissolved, it should be punishable as scamming. @Nicit6 is so righteously correct that it makes me want to go toss a chair or something to celebrate the point he has made. Well only for a second but still, darn good user complaint and I feel discussion of this point is relevant but I will not post again.