Scammers Pardon Pay-Backs

[xDePloY]

Hey guys,
So after looking into pardons; as the standard procedure goes, a scammer must pay back the victim in order to literally even apply for a pardon.

However, due to the huge price changes in RSGP throughout time; sometimes the re-payed amount does not match the price scammed since gold from 2007 would worth a WHOLE lot more than RSGP now. Therefore, the refunded amount of money given back to the victim would be incredibily less.

Therefore, I was wondering if it would be wise if we inco-operated a system where we check the specific time the scammer scammed and the rate of gold went for; and compared it to the current time the scammer wants to re-pay.

If that didn't really make sense; here is example

Heres how it works, because I know Tony messed up his wording above (he said we make them pay back 100M if they stole 100M OR the USD cash value, which is not correct).

User scams 100M - Prices are currently $1/M
1 year later user makes pardon - Prices are currently $0.50/M
The user scammed $100 worth of RSGP and is required to refund $100 worth of GP, in the case above, 200M instead of the original 100M.

Whenever I see a case where the person is trying to get off with only paying back the original RSGP amount, I always step in and make them pay back the $ value (unless the victim agrees otherwise).

Response: - Positive

that is what I meant, I was too lazy to give an example

Correct.. I think thats the way it should be so the user actually gets back what was stolen from him.

Please read it carefully; people are going off track and starting to add their own ideas to it about adding interest. I am not going for that. However, it is still suggestable.​

 

[Laptop65]

Pretty sure I've seen staff in the past say that a user has to pay this person back based on prices at a certain time frame (i.e 2007). RsProd is one name that comes to mind who's done this on pardons.

 

[xDePloY]

Pretty sure I've seen staff in the past say that a user has to pay this person back based on prices at a certain time frame (i.e 2007). RsProd is one name that comes to mind who's done this on pardons.

Ah, but I am not sure its really followed by everyone or is it actually offical. Just want to get it cleared up. But if RsProd and maybe you agree with it. Thanks pretty dope already :laugh:

 

[I_DONT_BOT]

Remember most of the pardons aren't people stealing gold, it's mainly people who chargedback the paypals, but for the ones that are affected, they should get the EQUIVALENT.

 

[xDePloY]

Remember most of the pardons aren't people stealing gold, it's mainly people who chargedback the paypals, but for the ones that are affected, they should get the EQUIVALENT.

Exactly what I am saying; it doesn't always have to apply with RSGP. E.g. other uses of gold in other areas/sections/games. As long the end total re-payed is EQUIVALENT to the scammed amount of money from the start.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

If users charged back paypal cash, say 100 dollars, then we require that they either pay back the 100 dollars or they pay back the equivalence in RSGP at TODAY'S prices.

If the user stole the RSGP, say 100M, then we require that they either pay back the 100M or they pay back the USD price of the RSGP AT THE TIME OF THEIR BAN.


It's not officially mentioned anymore, but that's how we work. Let me know if this answer satisfies you, I'll leave the thread open for more debate if not

 

[xDePloY]

If users charged back paypal cash, say 100 dollars, then we require that they either pay back the 100 dollars or they pay back the equivalence in RSGP at TODAY'S prices.

If the user stole the RSGP, say 100M, then we require that they either pay back the 100M or they pay back the USD price of the RSGP AT THE TIME OF THEIR BAN.


It's not officially mentioned anymore, but that's how we work. Let me know if this answer satisfies you, I'll leave the thread open for more debate if not

If its not offically mentioned but they staff follow it. Its good enough for me Thanks for the answer Mohtasa! Requesting close now

 

[MohtasaUnique]

No probs, I'm glad we got that straightened out


EDIT: Unlocked, austin has something to add

 

[Grave]

I've actually had to deal with a situation similar to this before, and my opinion on it is that if someone owes you something, it should be the exact thing that you should pay back, no matter what, unless both parties agree to something different. What I would like to see incorporated, however, is an interest rate of 18% APR (regular credit cards usually) added to anything owed past the timeframe agreed upon, or scammed. Therefore, if someone scammed 1B a year ago when prices were closer to 50 cents, and it's 25 cents today, the scammer would still pay back 1B + 180M interest.


Reasons for this thinking:

• I had to pay someone 10B because they cancelled a transaction. Gold prices went down a bit, and even though I got the gold at a higher rate, the person demanded it at a lower rate, and I ended up giving him 12B, even though an admin told me 10B would be fine, and a few days later gold prices went back up; this was during the dupe. Just because something fluctuates doesn't mean you should get more or less of it. Think of it as stocks: if you owe someone 100 shares of Apple, and it goes up or down, you still own them 100 shares.
• If no interest was agreed upon, you're basically taking out a free loan, and loans aren't that easy or cheap to get these days. So why should someone get away with it?

 

[Austintheman]

If users charged back paypal cash, say 100 dollars, then we require that they either pay back the 100 dollars or they pay back the equivalence in RSGP at TODAY'S prices.

If the user stole the RSGP, say 100M, then we require that they either pay back the 100M or they pay back the USD price of the RSGP AT THE TIME OF THEIR BAN.


It's not officially mentioned anymore, but that's how we work. Let me know if this answer satisfies you, I'll leave the thread open for more debate if not

This isn't fair at all. I say this because a) today's economy is constantly changing. $100 then isn't the same as $100 now. and B) similar to today's economy, 100M then is definitely not the same as 100M now. For example, 100M then could have bought multiple santa hats. Now, 100M is nothing.

Like Grave said, it also isn't fair that people just get a free loan as who knows what the victim was using the money for. It could have been rent money that caused the victim to lose their house(not literally their entire house; their shelter >_<) and whatnot.

My suggestion is the person that decides to repay the scammed user must pay 2X the price (current price, so 100m then is now 300M, $100 is $200 now, etc etc.). The way the current system is set up is flawed in so many different ways. It may seem harsh but hey, they decided to scam another member.

 

[MohtasaUnique]

I don't see how it's unfair, RSGP changes drastically, so when they pay back the amount they scammed, they pay it back in terms of the USD cash value, the same cash value that the victim lost

 

[xDePloY]

Nvm what I typed before

EDIT:

I don't see how it's unfair, RSGP changes drastically, so when they pay back the amount they scammed, they pay it back in terms of the USD cash value, the same cash value that the victim lost

My point what I was trying to make.

 

[SuF]

I've actually had to deal with a situation similar to this before, and my opinion on it is that if someone owes you something, it should be the exact thing that you should pay back, no matter what, unless both parties agree to something different. What I would like to see incorporated, however, is an interest rate of 18% APR (regular credit cards usually) added to anything owed past the timeframe agreed upon, or scammed. Therefore, if someone scammed 1B a year ago when prices were closer to 50 cents, and it's 25 cents today, the scammer would still pay back 1B + 180M interest.


Reasons for this thinking:

• I had to pay someone 10B because they cancelled a transaction. Gold prices went down a bit, and even though I got the gold at a higher rate, the person demanded it at a lower rate, and I ended up giving him 12B, even though an admin told me 10B would be fine, and a few days later gold prices went back up; this was during the dupe. Just because something fluctuates doesn't mean you should get more or less of it. Think of it as stocks: if you owe someone 100 shares of Apple, and it goes up or down, you still own them 100 shares.
• If no interest was agreed upon, you're basically taking out a free loan, and loans aren't that easy or cheap to get these days. So why should someone get away with it?

We have thought about interest. We decided it might discourage people from paying back at all. We'd rather more people pay back the amount stolen than less people pay back more than was stolen.

 

[Austintheman]

I don't see how it's unfair, RSGP changes drastically, so when they pay back the amount they scammed, they pay it back in terms of the USD cash value, the same cash value that the victim lost

What you were saying is "if they scammed 100M then, they must pay 100M now." Unless I misunderstood your post.

We have thought about interest. We decided it might discourage people from paying back at all. We'd rather more people pay back the amount stolen than less people pay back more than was stolen.

Then they are not really committed to coming back if it discourages them.

 

[SuF]

Then they are not really committed to coming back if it discourages them.

Obviously.

 

[video]

Just recently, I asked xi Momo xi to pay back someone with $140 worth of gold at today's prices, because gold has fallen about 40% since last year. I guess it's not an "official" rule but every case I've seen involving a payback has adjusted for the current price of gold.

As for adding an interest rate, I think it's too complicated and a tad unfair considering most people would not have been investing their gold at all

 

[xDePloY]

Obviously.

If they don't want to pay them back FULLY its obvious they are just seeking attention and want to get unbanned.

Just recently, I asked xi Momo xi to pay back someone with $140 worth of gold at today's prices, because gold has fallen about 40% since last year. I guess it's not an "official" rule but every case I've seen involving a payback has adjusted for the current price of gold.

As for adding an interest rate, I think it's too complicated and a tad unfair considering most people would not have been investing their gold at all

Yeah I agree; I didn't make the thread to encourage adding interest but paying back FULL amount; nothing added as video has said; the person might not haev invested their gold at all.

 

[Corey]

Heres how it works, because I know Tony messed up his wording above (he said we make them pay back 100M if they stole 100M OR the USD cash value, which is not correct).

User scams 100M - Prices are currently $1/M
1 year later user makes pardon - Prices are currently $0.50/M
The user scammed $100 worth of RSGP and is required to refund $100 worth of GP, in the case above, 200M instead of the original 100M.

Whenever I see a case where the person is trying to get off with only paying back the original RSGP amount, I always step in and make them pay back the $ value (unless the victim agrees otherwise).

 

[exapto]

I've actually had to deal with a situation similar to this before, and my opinion on it is that if someone owes you something, it should be the exact thing that you should pay back, no matter what, unless both parties agree to something different. What I would like to see incorporated, however, is an interest rate of 18% APR (regular credit cards usually) added to anything owed past the timeframe agreed upon, or scammed. Therefore, if someone scammed 1B a year ago when prices were closer to 50 cents, and it's 25 cents today, the scammer would still pay back 1B + 180M interest.


Reasons for this thinking:

• I had to pay someone 10B because they cancelled a transaction. Gold prices went down a bit, and even though I got the gold at a higher rate, the person demanded it at a lower rate, and I ended up giving him 12B, even though an admin told me 10B would be fine, and a few days later gold prices went back up; this was during the dupe. Just because something fluctuates doesn't mean you should get more or less of it. Think of it as stocks: if you owe someone 100 shares of Apple, and it goes up or down, you still own them 100 shares.
• If no interest was agreed upon, you're basically taking out a free loan, and loans aren't that easy or cheap to get these days. So why should someone get away with it?

Grave has a good point. I think that if we make it a rule in order to be pardoned (set rate, ex. 18%). As it would seem unfair to some, think about it: if the scammer can get off for simply paying what is due (what he actually should have paid for) then that will enable him to have a higher chance of scamming again, versus if we were to implement a rule such as this.

Source: I'm a statistician.

 

[Nerfed]

Heres how it works, because I know Tony messed up his wording above (he said we make them pay back 100M if they stole 100M OR the USD cash value, which is not correct).

User scams 100M - Prices are currently $1/M
1 year later user makes pardon - Prices are currently $0.50/M
The user scammed $100 worth of RSGP and is required to refund $100 worth of GP, in the case above, 200M instead of the original 100M.

Whenever I see a case where the person is trying to get off with only paying back the original RSGP amount, I always step in and make them pay back the $ value (unless the victim agrees otherwise).

Correct.. I think thats the way it should be so the user actually gets back what was stolen from him.