Regarding paying back debts..

[Punkerpunk13]

Well it occurred to me a bit ago that when somebody's hacked in order to come back to sythe they have to pay back how much was scammed.

What i'm proposing is simple.. If somebody has to pay back 500m that was scammed at feb 1st or some, when gold was about $1/m that they should have to pay back the average price of gold now.

What I mean is if gold is $.5/m now and when the gold was scammed it was $1/m, you should have to pay back the average for gold now. If I was hacked and the hacker scammed 50m when it was $1/m, shouldn't i have to pay back 100m if gold is $.5/m?

This only seems fair as market prices change often. Not paying back the amount like said in the above example is ripping off the party being scammed in the first place. Also, the only one to blame is the person who didn't pay back initially.

 

Makes perfect sense, it's not about the gold itself but about the monetary value of that gold.

 

[Darkstassassin]

Agreed, I would be mad if you didn't refund me quick when your hacker scammed me and gold went down.


Not that this applies to punker because he refunded within a few days

 

It only makes sense.

I support this.

 

[-Ryan]

Agreed, because it wouldn't truly be a full refund.

 

Makes more than full sense, you pay back the value, not the amount.

 

[Beav3r]

Makes sense, I agree.

Although my view is firmly that when party A is repaying Party B, Party B chooses the amount that must be refunded. If party A refuses the staff will evaluate whether the offer was fair.

 

[Clashfan]

That's already how it works. If the person being refunded feels that repayment at a 1:1 ratio isn't sufficient because of rsgp inflation, we would require the banned user to repay the dollar value of the trade.

 

[Lawliett]

agreed, when calculating total cost, time, labor, and potential growth are all factors needed to be taken into consideration before making a final evaluation.

 

[Time To Buy]

As Clash just said, I thought this was already the case. To be honest, when I heard of N4n0's 200$ scam, I thought to myself that if he were to pay the person back (he can't, he has tried several times to contact the scammed individual), he shouldn't just pay back the $200, but also account for the price change of the dollar! Based of this site, http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/ , he would need to pay back $210, not $200. That is based of the price of the dollar in 2010, it is even weaker now, so it might be a few dollars more.

What do you guys think of that? Adjust for the price of the dollar if the scam was years ago.

 

[Punkerpunk13]

Hate to bring up an old situation, but the reason I suggested this is because I thought it wasn't this way. When firez was unbanned he had to pay back the 420m. He bought it from me. :s

Edit: If this is how it already is, close this please.

 

[Clashfan]

Did you ask for more to compensate for the decreased value?

 

[Jeff]

As Clash just said, I thought this was already the case. To be honest, when I heard of N4n0's 200$ scam, I thought to myself that if he were to pay the person back (he can't, he has tried several times to contact the scammed individual), he shouldn't just pay back the $200, but also account for the price change of the dollar! Based of this site, http://www.measuringworth.com/ppowerus/ , he would need to pay back $210, not $200. That is based of the price of the dollar in 2010, it is even weaker now, so it might be a few dollars more.

What do you guys think of that? Adjust for the price of the dollar if the scam was years ago.

Flunctuation of the economy in the real world not not matter as everything else accounts for it (E.G. If I had been scammed for AUD$50 in 2010 and the scammer were to return and pay me back in 2011, assuming they're from the US, they would owe me USD$52.50. Due to the current economy of AUD$1 Australian dollar being worth USD$1.05 American dollars, that would already automatically account for the change).

OT: If this isn't already active, then I would have to agree that it should be.

 

[Piramid]

Support, the person should repay the value of the scam and not the actual amount scammed.

 

[Father 2h]

Support because this makes complete sense if it is not already enforced.

 

[Deathsnova]

how about.
People who scam dont get to come back to the site, so that they can scam again.

 

[Tiemen]

I would take this further. Scammer pays back whichever the scammed person prefers or simply the stuff with highest value.

E.g. In a 100m for 100$, the seller gets scammed. He could have sold this gold possibly to another guy for 100$ if the scammer didnt cross his path.
So, has he lost 100M or 100$?
Following your suggestion the scammer would now have to pay 150M or 75$ to the victim, while he has infact missed 100$ back then (even neglecting intrests etc).

 

[Clashfan]

I would take this further. Scammer pays back whichever the scammed person prefers or simply the stuff with highest value.

E.g. In a 100m for 100$, the seller gets scammed. He could have sold this gold possibly to another guy for 100$ if the scammer didnt cross his path.
So, has he lost 100M or 100$?
Following your suggestion the scammer would now have to pay 150M or 75$ to the victim, while he has infact missed 100$ back then (even neglecting intrests etc).

How are you coming up with 150m/$75?

 

[Tiemen]

How are you coming up with 150m/$75?

What I mean is if gold is $.5/m now and when the gold was scammed it was $1/m, you should have to pay back the average for gold now.

there ^^

 

[Clashfan]

there ^^

Oh. I don't think he meant take the average, but using what the average rate is now. So 100m scammed at $1/m = 200m payback at $.5/m