Hello,

After the fines recently handed out to Deck, Mina and Pieutte and sums ranging from one to almost five times (30M to 134M) for a fairly similar context, I had a very informative and constructive chat with Blue about a potential upgrade to this 25% format. The aim of the message, with his agreement, would be to discuss potential ideas for avoiding charging astronomical sums to players with very healthy bank accounts. From what I understand, the % had been introduced following feedback from people asking why some were paying more than others for similar penalties (in fact, if we took away 10M for provocation, for example, an account with less than 10M could have to pay a cheaper fine per insolvency and not send it into the red), and easier to implement in management and to justify fairness between players.

The idea I proposed to Blue (and which he asked me to present here) was to keep the % , but to add a maximum threshold that this percentage cannot exceed. Let's imagine a maximum fine threshold of 50M (for the following examples to come):

• From 0 to 200 million, the fine is 25% of the balance
• From 200 million, the fine remains at 50 million and does not increase by more than 1/4 of the balance.

This value of 50M is totally demonstrative, and could be defined by several parameters:

• A fixed value, with a meaning like the price of a very good transfer player (easy to determine, and fairly stable over time)
• 25% of the balance of the 3rd quartile of clubs' bank balances on VF (apparently unknown except for Aymeric, and possible bias by inactive clubs with their bank filled in)
• The 25% of the average club bank balance on VF (apparently unknown except for Aymeric, and possibly biased by inactive clubs with their bank filled in)
• Any other ideas?

A temporary ban was also potentially considered at one point or came up with a few exchanges in PM.

Ideally, the aim would be to avoid a club with 1MM in its account having to pay 250M in fines, while a club with 200M in its balance (which is surely already a good balance) would "only" have to pay 50M.

The percentage being announced, I find it quite coherent and even low depending on the case.
Maybe add malus or bonus depending on the case and the nickname 😀
From the moment you post a provocation you know where you're going.
You assume or not post.
The percentage of the bank and consistent. You have more you taste more.
L'impact et pas le même si tu prend 10m d'amende avec 700 en banque alors que si tu prend 150 ça peut te calmé.

I have no doubt that your exchange must have been constructive.
And may in fact lead to changes in the penalty scale.

But as Mina said, knowing this value of 25% by going with your post after several requests for relief from several different admins, you know the risk when you have a well-stocked bank.
In any case no one is caught unprepared.

But I'll leave you to discuss this proposal calmly, and perhaps it will find an echo in the near/far future.

25% still stings, which means that if I say something I don't like, I could lose more than half a million euros, which is huge ....

I don't agree with Mina. 25% means that a club with 1 million in the bank will be able to light fuses and provoke by losing 250 million and if they push me to the limit and I respond, I'll lose more than 250 million.
It's easy to provoke when you've got nothing in the bank.

jul068: Je ne suis pas d’accord avec Mina. 25% ça veut dire qu’un club avec 1 M en banque va tranquillement pouvoir allumer des mèches et provoquer en perdant 250ke et s’il me pousse à bout, que je réponds, je douille plus de 250M.
C’est facile de faire de la provoque quand tu n’as rien en banque

Yes, after that, I think banns are still possible in cases where they are necessary. I agree with the comments that support the view that "it's enough of a deterrent".

I'm not saying it's logical, 25% of the bank for a trifle stings and is illogical.
But in our case (me, deck and octopus) during our respective fights we were aware of the settlement ....
We had to assume and not cry.
There is no doubt that there is a better way of penalising players, but we still need to find a solution.

Hello
everyone can be angry at 1 time for x reasons, say we sanction 25% i don't see too much use when the anger is there.
In the past, there were the famous letter rules, which were much more effective and also allowed members to question themselves.
all means are good to get money out of the game as they say

redbull77: bonjour
tout le monde peut etre enerve a 1 moment pour x raisons , dire on sanctionne 25% j en vois pas trops l utilitee quand l enervement est la .
autrefois il y avait ce fameux reglement des lettres qui etaient bien plus efficace et cela permettait egalement aux membres de se remettres en question
tous les moyens sont bons pour faire sortir de l argent du jeux comme on dis

I'd removed it because it was a bit of a pain (it changed the nicknames, and I'm not sure that displaying people 24 hours a day is ideal) :p I'd switched to a shared excel with gradations of penalties for repeat offences, but it's a bit hard to keep track of (even in a team of several, I think :/).

Maybe have a system specific to the admin panel (although that hasn't changed in the meantime) that would allow them to easily keep track of everyone's various warnings?

Galywat: Je l'avais enlevé car c'était un peu chiant (ça changeait les pseudos, et bon je suis pas sûr qu'afficher les gens H24 soit idéal) :p J'étais passé à un excel partagé avec des gradations des sanctions en cas de récidive, mais c'est un peu pénible à bien tenir (même en équipe de plusieurs je pense :/)

Peut-être avoir un système propre au panneau d'administration (m'enfin si ça a pas changé entre temps) qui puissent leur permettre de facilement garder une trace des divers avertissements de cha...

you know that after 1 moment this letter disappears or is changed into another letter, it is not a question of displaying if 1 member has overstepped the mark,
it can prevent his entry into 1 agreement but nothing more
1fichier exel totalement contre pour 1 raison simple , ce fichier exel figurera automatique autre que vf , je l'avais signale par le passé deja
now 1 public file where only admins can remove or add to it, I say yes.

redbull77: tu sais au bout de 1 moment cette lettre elle disparait ou se change en autre lettre , ce n est pas 1question d affiche si 1 membre a depasse les bornes ,
cela peut empecher son entree dans 1 entente mais rien de plus
1fichier exel totalement contre pour 1raison simple , ce fichier exel figurera automatique autre que vf , je l avais signale par le passe deja
maintenant 1 fichier public ou seul les admins peuvent retirer ou ajouter dessus la je dis oui

Well, after that you put what you want in the file, nothing personal or anything else. Besides, I only put the reason for the sanction and the sanction next to it, the details of the names etc... stayed with me.

For the v, it wasn't automatic (whether it was set up, modified or removed), it was a manual operation.

Galywat: Mouais après tu mets ce que tu veux sur ce fichier, rien de personnel ou autre. D'ailleurs, je ne mettais que la cause de la sanction et la sanction à côté, le détail des noms etc... restait chez moi.

Pour le v, c'était pas automatique (que ce soit sa mise en place/modif/retrait), c'était une opération manuelle.

I know, but I've had access to all these files and I've posted 1 frame of one of these files on the vfo and it wasn't normal.

redbull77: je sais mais moi j ai u acces a tous ces fichiers ou j ai poste d ailleurs sur le vfo 1frame de l un ses fichiers et c etait pas normal

So, if you're talking about the excel spreadsheet with the sanctions and the reasons (without the names), that's normal, I made it public for the sake of transparency (but I stopped filling it in after a year, it's pretty time-consuming).

The one with the names on the back is impossible, it was only on my computer, and it wasn't an online file.

Now, you may be talking about something else, in which case my mistake :p

#forum?search=1&q=lomax&page=3
you will find here

Perhaps a sliding scale could be envisaged, as with taxes (which are progressive)?
Basic example: 25% gross on 1 billion vs. an arbitrary scale.

• 25% gross: 1000 * 0.25 = €250m fine
• Up to 50m: 30%; from 50m to 200m: 20%; from 200m to 500m: 15%; from 500m to 1000m: 10%.
  Calculation over 1000m using this scale:
  Up to 50m: 50m×0.30=15m; from 50m to 200m (150m): 150m×0.20=30m; from 200m to 500m (300m): 300m×0.15=45m; from 500m to 1000m (500m): 500m×0.10=50m
  Total: €140m, with more and more wealthy people being penalised and a fairer system?

As far as I'm concerned, it should be a fixed penalty, with just the impossibility of being negative. After that, if there's a repeat offence, it's exclusion from the club, ....
Personally, I've got quite a bit of money and if I post the wrong message, it will cost me a lot of money.
They should be fixed values:
Bad message :100m ,....
And someone who makes 3 bad messages = 2 weeks dexclusio,... that would be a bit fairer.

This is not a legal lecture.
Civil and criminal law must not be confused.
The aim of a civil penalty is to repair a loss, and the aim of a criminal penalty is to punish.
But in relation to the notion of punishment, for a society (or community), the aim of criminal law is not so much to punish as to deter.
If the criminal sanction was enough to dissuade, then the community has won; if it wasn't, then it has lost, and that's because the level of the criminal sanction was ill-adjusted.
So the real question is not whether the person who took 134 M took too much or not, the real question is: is this scale adapted to dissuade the greatest number (or even the vast majority) from doing what is forbidden.
In today's society, the reason why certain behaviours have multiplied is because the penalty was no longer a deterrent.
So yes, modulating the scale according to cash flow or the number of repeat offences is necessary, because a €X fine will totally deter Peter but not Paul or James.

Is there a temporary ban from the VFo?
That would give you an extra degree of protection before the final blow.
It's done elsewhere, I think.

On the MC Yes
The VF forum I think not

I think only Aymeric can do it.

Magpie: Existe-t-il une possibilité de ban temporaire du VFo ?
Ça permet d'apporter une graduation supplémentaire avant le couperet.
Ça se fait ailleurs je crois

I agree :p

Galywat: Je plussoie :p

Why did you ask?
Did you ask for it and get no response?

At one time, under the old Vfo, it was possible, having been banned myself once or twice.

Magpie: Pourquoi ?
Tu l'avais demandé sans avoir de retour ?

Yes, after I'd been given admin rights for the vfo, which at least allowed a bit of moderation if nothing else. After that it might be technically difficult to set up.

I agree with the possibility of a safe ban on vfo
@aymeric45 si Tu pouvais instaurer cela 👍📋

Banned once from the VFo, a few years ago... so yes, reinstating it could be good ;)