Changes to refunds in dispute/pardon attempts

I propose a change that hopefully aids victims more suitably in the future.

If a person is disputing or pardoning for something they have done in the past, make it so whatever they scammed has to be refunded in accordance to what the value of said product was during time of occurrence.

If a person say, scams 150mil 07 in the year 2013, the price being $2/m, and the 'defendant' attempts a refund in the year 2015, they would have to refund double the amount of what they scammed, which would be 300mil 07 with the current price being $1/m.

---------------------------------------------------------

I am unsure if this is already in working progress because I see people refunding only refund the amount they scammed, regardless of when it happened.

My proposition is that we enforce this unto anyone attempting a pardon or refund.

Thoughts?

 

If someone scammed 150m in 2013 and wanted to refund the victim today, they'll have to refund that same amount. Not only would this further deter refunds, we would be going in accordance to arbitrary value rather than set value.

 

Wait, is this not already set in place?

@ghast, if someone crashed into, and wrote off, your car some ~2 years ago and at the time the car was valued at $10,000 but throughout the 2 year period the car devalued $5,000 you would be happy to be reimbursed the difference of $5,000? Purely because time devaluated the product?

That to me seems absurd that the victim of an offence is only able to be reimbursed todays valuation of a product purely because the offender has lagged the activity of repayment.

The only problem I see is the policing. How do we know what the price of gold was at the point of original sale? Personally, if the scam report shows a trade value - the price in which the scammer has offered the victim should be the price repaid.

 

Yeah I agree with ASAP, If something is worth lets say $500 when it is scammed, then they should refund the equivalent $ value back in order to be considered for a pardon.

Imagine if someone scams someone for 250M when it's worth $500 at the time and then repays the 250M 2 years later when it's worth $200. He gains $300 for the 'scam' and gets a chance to pardon. To me, that's unfair to everybody.

 

The current way of handling refunds is the most effective for both parties. I've yet to see, or recall an incident where the victim demands to be paid at a value that is no longer pertinent to present day. As I said before, going with this method would only deter refunds being issued, and lengthen the process by trying to associate a price that correlates to a past time.

 

There have been a few cases @ Ghast, I can recall at least 2 but thats over like a 1 year period, so yeah they are really rare I would say.



To be honest I do agree it should be an equal $ amount BUT, I personally assume if a timeframe of 2 years has passed like the OP's example, that the victim at that point is just happy to get anything back tbh.

 

This is how things are already done.

Sometimes its overlooked, but when the mod/person scams mentions that there is a price difference they're already required to refund an equivalent value.

 

They are already required to refund the $ value, it's not always necessary to take extra care with this because of the minimal difference in value.