No grace period for people who dont pay their dicing debt on time

So many reports/bans on people who're unable to pay their dicing debts there and then.

Excuses from 'I'm on my phone' 'I'll do it when I'm home from school' shouldn't be acceptable.

They should be banned there and then and then TWC for betting when they clearly didn't have the funds available at the time.

It's the same as buying someone’s gold and then telling them, 'Oh sorry, can't pay ATM I will tomorrow'


Example reports:

http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer-archive/1769612-twc-request-avenue.html

http://www.sythe.org/report-scammer-archive/1769464-denchgold-late-payment.html

 

I agree pretty much 100%, with the only exception being if they made agreements prior to the bet that it will be paid in x amount of hours\day(s). For example if I said I'll pay you after school, and for some reason I was late coming home, or just something happened, you shouldn't have agreed to take the spoils after the bet. It's a very good point though, because they could just be bidding their time to scam more people, if they fail maybe they say good bye to sythe, or if they fail maybe they just pay-out and try again a different month\time.

 

Completely agree, ban hammer the cancer.

 

If they're unable to pay, they're banned until they can.

You shouldn't bet with someone that can't pay until later on unless you know them/trusted enough.

Just have the user PM a staff member with screenshots of everything or just post a scam report. Either works.

So I mean this isn't really a suggestion, this thing already kinda has a system.

 

Yeah, that's what happened with me and Delaghetto. Unb4nn3d said he'd get a week long dicing ban, and nothing ever came of it because he continued to dice.

He said he only didn't pay right away because it wasn't stated in the rules that he had to pay immediately.

The dicing mod (Unb4nn3d) is a joke, honestly.

 

I agree that this should be implemented, this happaned to me once but I was just fine with it because I did not need the gold at the time. But if it was monitored more and reports were taken seriously.

 

What happens if you post your offer, wait a bit, get offline/go out and then someone responds? Or say they bet during lunch then have class?

A grace period is okay as long as it isn't excessive, IMO.

 

Another thing is some of these people who are taking their sweet ass time to repay their debts are active gold market members. If they do eventually pay, they should end up with a Trade with Caution at the very least, or a PERM/TEMP donor lounge/Sand box ban to prevent it from reoccurring.
(Using Dialatic's example of Delaghetto and also DenchGold)

 

Lol using me as an example.
i do totally agree with you as i have been paid late and it is annoying but as roary said, sometimes people can come up to personal issues so i think a max 24hours period to repay is fair.

 

I was late for payment once to my knowledge in the donor lounge, and that was due to a personal issue i came across.

 

It's more so people who PM right after saying they'll pay the next day. If they have time to post the offer and reply they should leave themselves time to repay. Ofc some people go AFK time to time, but if you know you're going to be online only a short time after you bet they should state it in their betting offer so people know that they're time restricked.

 

I used you as an example because you've requested to be banned from the dicing thread twice in the last week? aswell as had a overdue payment. I would say it's a prime example of the point I'm trying to make in this thread.

 

I think that, on a forum where users are globally located and therefore in lots of different timezones and circumstances with work/school/etc, that a small amount of time to pay the opposition is reasonable. Enforcing a ban straight away would only lead to more problems than the original occurrence - in that bans have to placed, disputes posted & checked out, unbannings done... - this distracts staff from perhaps more serious or important reports & disputes (most dice disputes do get settled pretty quickly). In cases where they don't, then obviously a report and ban - I feel - are necessary.

 

I totally agree with you, but I'd like to explain my situation here:

I would have paid Travis immediately if I was actually on my computer. I waited around 10 minutes, he didn't roll so I went to bed (I didn't want to wait for hours). The only reason I checked on my phone was to see if he already rolled and to tell Travis that I'd pay him tomorrow and that he didn't had to worry. The next morning I immediately paid him before I even noticed that he reported me.

We could just stick to this rule, unless both parties agree to do multiple bets in a row:

 

Support. Shouldn't be dicing if you can't pay out immediately following a loss. The only exception is if the winner had prior knowledge that you wouldn't be able to pay right away, and agreed to those terms.

Even in that situation, I would think that the person who lost shouldn't be allowed to dice further until their debt is paid. Seems like common sense.

 

I think that's a given

 

Oops, misread Dialatic's post, thought he had someone who continued to dice with an outstanding debt owed to him.

In regards to your previous post, I do agree that in most cases, it's fine to have a grace period for the loser to pay their debt (although they probably should've just voided the wager if they couldn't pay right away), however there have been several instances in the past where the losing party would immediately inform the winner that they wouldn't be able to pay for a certain amount of time. To me, this indicates that the person was dicing with money they didn't have, hoping to win. Now that they've lost, they're trying to buy some time to get the funds together. This shouldn't be allowed.

 

If they cant pay it when they are gambling they ought not be gambling.

Support. Hammer the deadbeats.

 

How would you distinguish between people who can't pay and people who actually had to leave?

 

Then you'd agree it's best to judge these things on a case-by-case rather than a rule for all that could be inefficient.