Sorry, but that's not the way it works. There are constitutional rights in the real world, sure, but those do not fully apply here. You're overlooking the fact that the EMC environment is fully run, hosted and owned by Aikar's company. Ergo: in the end he / they (staff) get to determine the rules of gameplay and enforce them as they deem fit. (fictional) example: there is freedom of speech. So should I be allowed to share that I'm running my own server based on Empire and that I think all of you should try it out? Note the cursive section... I'm not saying you should join it, no, I'm stating my opinion there. "I think you should try it". This is a very well known "trick" in public media to ensure that you're expressing an opinion, ergo you should be protected by the fundamental right of freedom of speech. Trust me: it doesn't work like that over here, nor should it. We all agreed to comply with the game rules, one of them being not to advertise other servers no matter what. Another fundamental rule is to listen to server staff and follow their lead. You cannot compare rules and laws from the real world with the way the game is being run over here. Although we enjoy a lot of freedom on this server and within this community (one of the reasons I quickly joined) one should never forget that this freedom isn't enforce by public laws or constitutional rights. But by the rules laid out by Aikar and the rest of the Empire staff. Don't get me wrong; doesn't mean I fully disagree with you. You can loan someone money or stuff if you want to, or set something up amongst yourselves. The only problem with that is that you won't enjoy the kind of protection from the Empire staff which you'd otherwise have. Of course there are a few more strings attached here, but that's a bit too deep right now. I have to disagree. "Usually won't be able to help"? Aha, so you have helped others in the past? What makes their case different than mine? He (random player) tricked me into lending him money and now he doesn't pay me back. But you're now saying you can't help me? So what is the exception? I want ma money backs!!1 Also, such a rule (more or less) is already set in place, check out the wiki page. In general: when my friend asks me to loan him some money then there's nothing stopping me from accepting that. The main thing is that we both know that in case of a disagreement we cannot bother staff with this. SO based on that I don't really see the problem at all. The main issue here is that you cannot start setting up loans in public or build a bank for all players to use. Now, I don't mean any offense here but I cannot help wonder: Wouldn't it be true to say that the (majority?) of people who have an issue with this are also the people who would use these environments (banking/loans) in an attempt to make a lot of (easy) money? Is it really about gameplay or about creating an opportunity to make more money? Each to his own, but I have my suspicions there
Average age of High School graduate is around 18 with few exceptions some being 17 or 19 depending on their birthday then one can choose to go to Jr. College, University or Trade school or not go at all. Depending on your degree plan " Associates to Bachelor degree" you can be done with it in 2-5 years time. Of course this isn't factoring one chooses to change Majors, Financial trouble or other factors. So all in all both country educational systems when a person gets his/her High School Diploma or General Certificate of Education is about same age. Anyways Back to topic on hand Most cases I have dealt with was players scamming young players to make quick dollar there are few unique cases but can't talk about them cause against policy and if i said them your smart miner to figure it what group did it.
Somewhat off topic ... I know that there are differences in law and perhaps even bigger differences in the perception of the legal situation between Europe and US. But still, inalienable rights are inalienable no matter what. For some of the rights, the subject having the right can surrender it (free will). For some of the rights even that is not possible. Even on a private property etc. In my opinion, this should be naturally understandable. Just where are the limits? Are there any? Any at all? I'm not really interested in the legal situation, but in the community and its development. Legal or not, if someone does not treat people with respect and dignity, they are doing harm to those, to themselves and to the community. You're saying it. We need to distinguish between freedoms and tricks... To what limit? Is there any? How about the right to privacy? Even in the case that you're absolutely right from the legal point of view (which I doubt, at least partially), I think it would be very unwise to place and enforce rules which would be insulting or humiliating for the members. IMO, this is a natural thing: You can start a community, provide for a community, care about a community. Still, you can not "own" a community, you can not own people, their dignity, their privacy etc, you are not free to do with them whatever you might want. That's what I mean. How could one forbid people to make private loan contracts? I provide storage for many people, I was involved in several types of private loans, joint investments, and similar. It would be insulting to me (and all those playmates here) to "criminalize" that activity. This is not a problem, because it is clear (to me) that EMC staff can not be responsible. Because: - they can not be responsible for private agreements between people - as stated in the wiki, because they just don't have means to check what happened ("word of mouth") - they might just lack the time / energy even if they would like to help Exactly! No problems there. Back to the topic ... This is what this thread is about. Banks as a service to the community. I think that with few rules (as written in a posting somewhere above), this would be possible and it would be a good thing for the community and EMC. It would open many new interesting roles for members to slip into, it would provide opportunity for getting very valuable experiences. If you provide a service you can expect to get something for that. And, believe me, providing good banking service would be everything but easy money. Think only about all the risks. At the end, the people / the market would decide about the value of each service and the banks would compete with low interest rates and good service. Example: I was renting out a grinder. One of the users blew it up with TNT (and got banned). Should there be a rule: "It is forbidden to rent (out) grinders?" "Because someone could destroy it, and it did already happen..." Yes, it is about gameplay to slip into different roles, to learn, to provide service to the community, to compete and develop. I've learned a lot by running the shop on smp6. (Imagine: "No Shops!") Learn while playing!
Agreed, but also very interesting & intriguing (and I already like discussing with you). Also; might provide some background info / ideas. And also: Very good arguments / points indeed. In my opinion a lot of the rules and the way they are enforced here boils down to "letter of the law" vs. "spirit of the law". Please note that this is just my observation / opinion of course. Also keep in mind that this is very abstract and not easily explained. But basically; 'where are the limits' is to some extend determined by the moment as well as the situation, or so I think. So you shouldn't be surprised to see if someone breaks a rule but the staff member in question choses not to step in. While in another moment when the same rule is broken it would trigger a reaction from said staff member. Sometimes the community is best served by not stepping in whereas in other times its better to enforce a rule more actively. The way I see it; the rules laid out in a community have 2 purposes. First and foremost to make sure that everyone behaves as is expected of them (think no griefing) but also to give the staff the leverage they need to step in if the need arises. Its not merely an issue of telling the community what it can or cannot do. Its also, I'd say mostly, trying to create an environment which can be enjoyed by that same community. And that sometimes means setting up some limits. You're dealing with players, who are real people in the end, and not toys. Trust me, I know what you're getting at. Well, this is basically what I was aiming at up there. Also; do keep well in mind that what could be insulting for you doesn't have to be picked up in that same way by others. Note: Just in case I need to stress out that I'm merely sharing my personal opinion here, which is based on what I've experienced in the Empire so far. But I could be waay off here But I think that you wouldn't have to fear that staff is coming after you if you set up private loan contracts with an x amount of players. Keyword being: private. Call it going "underground" if you will. So basically; as long as you guys are having fun and no one gets scammed or mistreated then I doubt that there would be any reason for staff to step in. You might be breaking some rules where the "letter of the law" is concerned, but you probably wouldn't create any reason to step in. Hence the 'spirit of the law'. Of course that would (or could) immediately change the very moment someone reported you for swindling / scamming them. I also think this is the limit you were wondering about earlier. Because now staff gets alerted about foul play. And then we come down to the rules as they are put in place. Those are the tools if you will which staff has to work with. So that would probably be the moment when you could get into trouble. But I'm under the impression that as long as there is no need for the server staff to step in that they also most likely won't bother. They're way too busy already as it is I think. I can respect your opinion, could even agree with it, but I've heard too many people mention the numerous problems it has caused in the past. I've seen both staff members as well as players mention this, sometimes even providing examples as to what has happened in the past. And I think that's the main issue here: they've been there, they've done this and that has eventually led them to this ruling. And the only reason I say 'they' is because all of this happened at a time when I didn't even know EMC So, while this might work in theory I get the impression that the EMC history has shown otherwise. Hmm, when looking at your stats I guess you probably even lived that period. Even so; I think that history is the main thing working against these ideas. There is of course another very important issue, I already mentioned it briefly: different people who experience things differently as well. It's one thing to set up a bunch of rules and guidelines when it comes to banking and loans. Actually having the players to understand all of them is something else. Example: Do you know the consequences of giving out the admin flag on your residence? Once you do that it will also set off plenty of alarms and whistles about the possible consequences; you need to manually confirm your choice by clicking on the green wool and after you confirmed it this shows up: In this case I used /res pset uber_corq admin remove instead (sorry Corq ) Yet despite all of these warnings and that strong suggestion of resetting your permissions back to default there are still plenty of players who end up getting scammed / stolen from. Because they set the admin flag either way. I'm talking from personal experience here. Not in the sense that I got stolen from, but I've seen this mentioned plenty of times already in the town chat. So with that in mind I cannot help wonder if merely setting up a collection of good, strong, rules and guidelines would actually be enough to rule out any drama or problems with banking.
My opinion is that both the spirit and the letter can receive further improvements, and that people here, the EMC community, are worthy of it, they deserve improvements. Spirit: further away from childish, fear-based, preemptive, closed agenda, patronizing, kindergarten-like or military-like - towards quality, modern, civil open society / open community. Letter: away from arbitrary, too specific, missing the point, too restrictive, patronizing, discriminatory - towards more general, more to the point. Example: Not good: "Goodbye threads are not allowed" Good: "Bashing / defamation / libel is not allowed" (Should be common sense IMO.) Example: Not good: You can auction only in full DCs (and then long list of exceptions / list of what you can and can not auction) Better: Auctions in the "Community Auctions" forum are restricted in order for it to contain just the most useful no-nonsense auctions and receive full moderation support. Do not make pointless / joke auctions here. Use reasonable bulk amounts of items / blocks: at least a full DC or at least with a starting price of 5000r. Use full stacks or an amount that is easy to comprehend: good: 1000 diamonds, not good: 537 diamonds. (And then perhaps add an unrestricted "[Free Auction]" forum - if there are enough people here who just like it.) Of course, but when the basic human rights as e.g. the right to privacy or dignity is touched, then a red "off limits" lamp should start blinking. I think this would be the general rule, this would usually be the case. Do not disturb. Do not "play god". Laissez faire. I do They're coming after me! Help! Hide! Better: right to privacy. Freedom of contract. No patronizing, arbitrary, unnatural, intrusive rules. Modern, high standards open community. Out of infinite possibilities of how to scam people, if offering public financial services really is one of the few bad things that deserve to be explicitly banned, then they shall remain banned. But I doubt that. I think that "scam is not allowed" (along with few dedicated sections in the wiki / tutorial) should be the right measure. And then, if someone is out to scam people, will they follow some rules? Yes, but few bad apples / bad experiences should not demoralize the community. Former EMC owners / staff were saying like: We know kids online. This is the best way to deal with them. They bad, bad little thieving monsters. It's not good for a community to be too restrictive, have restrictive preemptive rules - because this makes more damage in the long run. Damage to the majority of well minded members, not to the rotten apples. And that flag is still a good thing. People need to learn and develop, there is no shortcut to that. There is no survival without development. (And we play survival, don't we? ) They just have to make this experience and learn - and it's better they make it in game and learn here. This is way more valuable then to patronize them and "protect" them from the opportunity to learn how to judge the trustworthiness and behavior of the (online) people around them.
The thread is TL;DR for me, so I'm going to reply based off of the OP. To Legalizing Loans: When a loan is made, it is assumed it will be paid back. But when the receiver falls in debt, where do we go from there? If there's no way the loaning party can enforce a repayment, then there's no reason the receiving party would even care to repay it at all. Staff will not be able to piece together the bits and pieces that ended up in your "contract" that resulted in a loan. Even if they could, how would they respond? They may have the money and refuse to pay it- do they bring Seniors in to transfer rupees? They have nowhere near the promised amount- do they punish them? Overall the simplest answer is to not allow loans in the first place. But, does that mean we are going to stop you from loaning your money? It's your money, so do as you please with it, but don't expect it back... Though, it's not the worst thing in the world to give some money to a friend starting a shop, right? Staff have no part in personal endeavors. They will not regulate on such a small level; they will not be able to step in when there's a problem. As a side note, which should be obvious, banks are not allowed. They make money off of loans and interest. It assumes too much that this loan can always be paid off. It's nothing to make a business out of in this environment, coupled with the reasons above. What could there be in place of loans?: I think what we're going for here is a subsidy... A subsidy is a sum of money granted by the government or a public body to assist an industry or business so that the price of a commodity or service may remain low or competitive. So you, and others with you maybe, want to stimulate the economy. At least I think that's what we're looking for. A subsidy is, in the case of EMC almost always, a donation. But it has an added bit to it. A few moderately wealthy to wealthy players may want to boost competition, which many agree will help stabilize the prices of goods. It's not so much some new player begging for donations to set up a shop. It's the wealthy searching for others who are projected to make great progress in a shop/business- but simply need funds/help to get it going. So the wealthy offers a subsidy to the new owner, and simply asks in return that the owner bring about this estimated amount of progress or success. It's a deal by word of mouth, maybe even written if you like being formal. The major, legal difference between this and a loan is that the receiver is not obligated to pay it back. It does assume that the player who wants to make this little donation and deal a little bit of thought first, and made sure that he is not just throwing his money out to whomever simply asks for it. The hope is that this lowers the price of certain goods (diamonds, amirite?) and increases the competition and commerce in the Empire. It has little benefit to major shops immediately, but may indirectly help them and everyone else down the line. Subsidizing a new business is very much allowed and often done between players, maybe just not to the right ones or at the right times. ---------------------------------------------------------------When we say those rupees in your rupee balance are your rupees, we mean it. In the end it's up to the responsibility of the players to keep the market running and keep it basic. There are rules in place to keep it basic, to avoid altogether the tactics that cause harm to players. Sure, you could make it work, but it won't usually, and thus it is avoided by a broad regulation. TL;DR - Loan = bad, bank = bad, subsidy = alternative to loan, rules = good
The simplest answer is very probably not the correct answer, because life / nature isn't simple. Isn't this contradictory? "not allow loans" - what does that mean? What happens if I do loan rupees to a friend or business partner? "It's your money, so do as you please with it" - fine, so private loans are not forbidden? If I loan rupees, private, not offering public loan service, and I have hard proof of what happened, like signed book and rupee log, and the person in debt doesn't pay back as agreed, then this is a kind of scam / stealing. So why to treat it differently than all other possible types of scam or stealing? The bank does not assume too much - they calculate the risk and arrange insurance. I'm not convinced. I can see that it could work with few rules as described further above. Why banks are feared here on EMC is not because of that kind of business, but rather saving accounts, where a bank would possess other peoples rupees and could potentially do large scale scam. Regarding investments: If I agree to invest, let's say in building a grinder in a way that I'll give 100k to the project and then people running it will pay installments of 10k back each month 14 times starting with 2nd month - so I get 140k back in the sum. It's written in a signed book and the 100k transaction is in the rupee log. After a while they just refuse to pay back. I call it scam / stealing, call a moderator and present the evidence. What should happen next, what does the moderator do?
Loans do not help the poor profit. Loans are a way for the rich to profit off of having money that you don't. The only way the rich will loan out money is if they are, indeed, profiting. If the bank is profiting, someone is paying. That someone is the person taking the loan. Who will protect the bank when the person borrowing money just never gets back on EMC or gets banned? What would even happen to someone who never makes enough rupees to pay off a loan, not because they intended to steal but because they budget poorly or don't play enough? The only way loans will even get paid back is if the recipient invests that loan, which is not going to be the case. They will take that loan and spend it on the things they want and forget about it almost every time. Personally, I don't want to see players struggling to pay off debts on EMC, and I certainly would not want to be the banker responsible for hunting down other players and forcing them to pay up or face consequences. Debt is a stressful state to live in and won't make for fun gameplay. Most players have no respect for debt either, borrowing money and then still spending their rupees as if they were their own and not borrowed at all. Very few loans would end well. I think it's best to keep loans how they are now: on the honor system between friends in private conversations. A pawn shop almost seems like a more practical solution for borrowing money, though still not very profitable for the customer. That is, a place where you can have your item(s) held as collateral, and if you don't pay by a certain date the item becomes the property of the person you borrowed money from. The item would be worth more than the loan, of course. At least that way, hard feelings or not, the deal is over by a certain date and no one has to hunt each other down and cut off fingers. Still, the profit of a pawn shop depends on people not paying up. They want to target people who have one or more valuable items, but clearly can't make the rupees to pay back their debts. Any system that primarily profits from preying on ignorance isn't something I want to see staff working hard to support.
No. My post said: When there is a personal loan, it almost exclusively means between a player and a good friend. Notice that's a personally made loan, not a private one between random players. Example: I'm good friends with BrenJone. He does a slime auction and makes 15k. I ask to borrow 10k so I can buy a DC of redstone. I tell him I have an iron auction lined up and I'll pay him back when it's done. I get my redstone, the auction is a success, I pay him back. He didn't even have to set a deadline or ask for the rupees back. The trust between players would have to be on this level, and who's going to stop it from happening when it happens? If you have to make a contract over it, then maybe you don't trust them quite enough to make a loan as described above. So don't. No need to risk legal trouble over it. If someone thinks setting up a bank, after calculating the risk, will result only in good for them and for others, then he has indeed assumed too much. There is zero reason for players to store rupees in a bank... Your personal balance is quite safe, I can assure you. With that, banks won't have any non-interest income. What then, are you going to set aside a reserve to kickstart it? What's the standard? Gold, Diamonds, Dirt? Reasonably it would need to be nearly the same for all banks. Furthermore, who will insure the bank? It seems highly unlikely all banks on EMC would grow very large or do very well. It's not as if staff will set up a system of regional banks to keep the banking system from going under... The rules say it well how the risk is handled, "The Staff Team is not there to act as your lawyers, and because the scam potential is so high, they will not get involved," meaning banks shouldn't assume staff will back them up when things do go wrong. The point of a bank is to have less money inthe bank at any one time then there is floating around in the form of loans returned with interest. That's how banks make their money. Staff can't micro-manage that kind of business... Rupee logs are huge, like, 10 transactions a minute in the slowest times of day. A couple transactions made between two players is simple to log, but in any form of business it adds up. Preventing any and all issues through the rules is preferred over allowing the business and risking a new wave of scam reports because person A couldn't pay off the loan to person B, or hasn't been around to do so. Staff get reports like this on a regular basis anyway, even though the rules forbid that it should happen. Staff don't really need more reports like that... Loans and banking are disallowed to prevent scams like this... I don't see why you put that there? It doesn't really help your case for banks. If you meant subsidy and not investment, then that's different. The grinder example is not a subsidy, because the loaning party expects to be paid back (in installments).
I see that the perception of what a "bank" is and how it works is somewhat different among us here. A "bank" on EMC would be far more simpler than a bank IRL. (BTW, I've mentioned above that I would eventually consider running a bank ... perhaps sometime in the future. But at the present moment, I would rather be on the other side: a customer looking for a loan. I have a profitable business and I need funds to expand it. I'm well known as a person who can manage investment / debt very well...) I'll be glad to explain my idea about how "banking" could work on EMC despite all of described risks, "assuming too much" and all the problems - a bit later. Just for a moment, I'd like to forget "banking", because: My point here regarding "banking" is that the issue here is not really "banking"! It is not "banking," "loan" nor "storage" that are bad as such and therefore deserve to be banned. There are infinite other possibilities for scamming, better said, there is just about no occupation / business without such possibility. So why pick "banking" (just because "it already happened") and not stick to a more general rule? If it's not really "banking," then what is the essence of the problem? This is really the problem. How about (joking!): "Anything that has potential of generating significant amount of reports and/or complains is not allowed?" Which leads to (joking!): "Everything is not allowed!" (Note the emphasis.) (You know, there is some truth in every joke. ) Now, sincerely - - why is this a problem at all? - what would be a natural way to tackle this problem?
Pawn shops make just as much if not more money on people that don't want to lose their items and do pay or can't afford to get it out but can afford to pay the "storage" fee. To confiscate the item means that they have to find a buyer. Thats when foot traffic into the shop to buy the items comes into play and the chance that someone will want that item. Sure they need to keep the shelves stocked but they can do that usually with the people that come in and sell their stuff below market value to get that instant cash. Which is probably something that wouldn't work in a world where over half the items are actually useful to more than half the population. In EMC you would probably make more long term profits on people just not being able to pay to release their item. Especially since you can pretty much have infinite storage space, which isn't the case in RL. Either way, I love the idea of a pawn shop. I just think in EMC it would be more of a Pawn and shop. If that makes any sense
