Developmental Aid (Golden Rainbow)

We have Trillions laying around and we need to give it out. Giving out Aid will also boost the global economy, because the money will get used instead of sitting in it's vault. My last one was voted down hard core. THERE IS NO POLITICAL TIES LINKED TO MY AID REQUESTS.
Austia

Okay no political minded requests ?

Soo that means i qualifiy ? ;P

Dammit Owen you are like the resident SC hobo. lol.

I'd personally prefer to see the aid go to small countries...rather than those who have already gone out and conquered territory. 5T aid package is roughly worth, what, 8 or 9GC? That'll get someone small a relatively huge couple million in population and a corresponding number of productive corporations.

Empires have already shown the willingness and ability to get more population through other means...they don't really need the money, IMHO, and I for one won't vote to give it to them.

Give me the money and I'll hold an tax-free open house for CEOs in Freehold of Upper Gadsden.

well, It is well known that you can stimulate an economy by pumping money into the population. We could greatly stimulate the GR economy with the 480T that we have lieing around.

the only requirement is that they are a non veteran player.
Austia

Well, seems that i'm the right candidate to get the aid! I'm a newbie with a single nation, some aid will surely help!

LMAO ...

I am , i am the resident hobo , i wander from world to world , looking for my 5 T aid >.<

if i get rejected i have to look else where .. mainly laguna .. and he doesnt give out money for free , and i have to spend half of it getting treatment after

This sounds vaguely familiar....500T bailout plan, everyone getting in line to get their cut of the pie....if I could only think of where I have heard of something similar lately...

Maybe this (or maybe a new one) thread should allow people to apply for the aid. Requested amount, the business plan for its use. The funds could be earmarked for economic development...ie no spending on nukes or something along those lines.

I'd imagine you would rapidly find new homes for every stray credit you have in your kennel. Heck, I see about 15T in requests here already!

That way, you will have introduced a set procedure everyone can understand, and also transparency into the process. Better yet, publish a set of standards as to who is eligible..."not veteran" is a little vague. Something more like "no empires" and "net worth under xxGC" or something. The standards could be voted on...once a set of standards and a procedure on how to apply is agreed to by the planet as a whole, I suspect you'll end up with a lot of applicants and its far more likely that those applicants will survive the vote to get their aid.

I'd say it would be a win for everyone.

some aid to the GM for an update and reprint of the constitution LOL

I agree with Slare on make the standard. But the problem could be: assuming that a nation ask for the aid with a good business plan, who can check if the money will spent on it and not on nuke or something else? Actually seems that the engine can't do anything on this issue.

/me bangs Angry hobo fists on the SC doors ..

weres My 5 T ? .. my offshore account is not full .. yet ;)

I agree with you Austia! We need to get that money to the players that need it!

Yeah, system-enforced earmarks would be impractical, and not realistic either. Lets face it, getting international aid to where its needed and using it for its intended purpose is pretty difficult in the real world too! Iraq reconstruction money scandals being a good example.

Much like in the real world, we could attach the restrictions to the money, but enforcement would have to come via the players...if we require the aid recipient to disable military secrecy for x amount of time after the loan, and someone notices suddenly he has quite a nuke force within a couple months of the loan....well, we have some options. Ditto if he turns the secrecy on (ie kicked our weapons inspectors out). War, boycotts, whatever. I mean, there is a menu option for "SC violations", seems like this would fall under there.

So the SC calls for boycotts, but some countries still trade with them under the table at inflated profit margins...well, things could get interesting...or not, it really depends on the players.

But really, an agreement on application procedures and standards coupled with transparency of the process is what will solve the main problem, which is getting more people to vote yea on aid plans.

I haven't been around long enough to know if Austia's comment about politically motivated SC aid proposals was actually a problem or has been perceived to have been a problem in the past, but standards and transparency will clearly confirm or reject any such speculation.

@slare- It's actually more cut and dry than you think. Noobs do not have strong militaries. It takes time and money to build one, noobs have had neither.

As for my comment about Politically Motivated SC aid proposals. There was once a time when GR residents didn't see eye to eye and every SC proposal was politically motivated.

Austia

So let's discuss about this standard.

For example:
1) The player need to have only one country.
2) The players don't have attacked without motivation other players.
3) The player has a financial index below or above a certain score (other index could be added)

I'm playing this game from a week, so maybe i don't know other things that could be used to evaluate the candidate.

Eventually more aid typology could be defined, with different amount for different situation.

Well, I don't know that we want to limit aid to noobs entirely....though I agree that they should get preference. So basing it on military index entirely might not have the desired outcome of getting the money out there.

Additionally, is that really the current standard? Lets look at the evidence:

- Surely more than one noob joined the game in the last three weeks, but I have only seen one vote.

- The guy I was voting on already had an empire.

So the guy may well have been a noob who took a C3 quickly, but to most of us it looks like this one guy was singled out for free money (only one vote in three weeks) for some mysterious reason, and he certainly doesn't look like a noob at first glance since he's an empire. Remember, you are fighting perception here, the facts come a distant second when it comes time to vote!

So, anyone can apply. Anyone who meets the standards gets a vote. Hopefully if the votes come regularly so that it doesn't appear anyone is being singled out for shady reasons, and the country being voted on is inoffensive, the vote passes.

Standards:

-Single Country (this should usually encompass Pietro's #2)
-Non-Nuke
-Overall Country score under 1000(?) (This is a good aggregate indicator of country success, includes military and such)
-Basic business plan (ie build hospitals, get population, whatever, as long as it sounds like it will be spent wisely)
-Military secrecy off
-Aid not spent on offense\strategic weapons (free money should come with *some* sort of stipulations, enforcement/punishment would have to be decided upon by the world community as in the real world)

Simple, geared to noobs but not exclusively.

- Advertise the requirements to all.

- Create an open and transparent application procedure (via forum topic perhaps)

- first-come-first-serve review by the SC to eliminate perceptions of favoritism

- all applications get a public SC response (in the forum perhaps, state it was forwarded for vote, or explain what qualifications it did not meet if not forwarded)

- quick referral to the general assembly for votes


A recipe for success I think.

Empire is why I quickly voted down the proposal personally. His countries looked poorly run to boot.

It would be similar to the US bailout, giving money to failing entities who will just be back a few months later for more.


I feel the aid should go to someone who is developing their country reasonably well, and who has actually attempted to be part of the community. They should be a full member of the game.


Also, there are FIFTEEN members of the Security Council. Why are only 5 members voting on topics???? That seems like a VERY inactive council we have.

Well the money sits there in the mean time. If we give it to ANYBODY they will spend it and our corps will prosper and the SC budget will replenish as it does. Lets just start giving it out now.

I don't know what about you, but I'm still trying to figure out what disease develomental is. Sounds like mental regression.

Hey I am right there with ya Austia. Money under the mattress doesn't do anyone much good, and makes the mattress lumpy. But I am assuming you SC folks have to be the ones to get the processes and procedures in place to do so effectively. I can certainly set up a topic, take applications and vet them, but who the hell am I?

quaxocal: The revolving door of handouts to poorly run countries was a concern of mine too. I was hoping the "business plan" requirement might help make sure the country has a reasonable chance of using the money wisely. I suppose if the plan was not followed through properly, and the applicant came back for a second dose of stimulants, we'd either deny the new request or attach our own plan he must follow to get the money, much like the IMF and World Bank attempt to do when they bail countries out in the real world.

Full Membership requirement might be good too...but on the other hand helping the trial members get established well might convince more people to become full members, which has long term benefits. I am kinda torn on that.

And I tend to agree about the inactive SC member thing. I realize we all have real lives, but if you not willing or able to vote on a large % of the SC votes, you should probably step down. Or have a removal method. But to be like the real world, removal would have to be the SC members voting to fire one of their colleagues , and you know how likely that is in *any* organization.

Now, I'm not gonna offer aid to an inactive president. I know if a president has potential. I was the Recruitment officer for the UC and I know how to spot talent. So you must know they have potential if I am willing to offer them aid. The last person was a newer president who is trying to expand his empire. Expansion is good but expensive.

Also, if my fried mind has crunched the numbers correctly, we could give about 1000 presidents 5t aid on a 500T budget.

I think your friend did the math wrong if he thinks 5*1000=500 100 countries would be closer ;)

And I think you have just demonstrated why you got voted down last time. Whether or not you can spot talent is irrelevant to making the vote pass.

Transparency, policies, and procedures are the only reliable way to get people on board with giving out aid, not some subjective claims of superior knowledge. What you see as being able to spot talent is what the rest of us see as favoritism or laying politics.

Your goal is to give out $$. Your current methods don't work. Given the above facts you yourself have acknowledged, its time to try something different.

I am just wondering why you seem reluctant to change course. While you haven't come out and said that you don't like our suggestions, your lack of spending the 15 minutes it would take to implement them speaks volumes. Or even offering counter-suggestions for that matter.

Yeah that math was way wrong. Last time I try math at 5 A.m. after a long night of work.

Either way you flip the subject, the fact is that very little aid goes out. Trust me, I've been on GR for over 100 game years and have been on the SC twice now. If everyone likes to vote down the aid packages, then no one gets any..including you.

I just want more money in the field so more products get purchased there for providing a nice, little boost in profits by all ceos and country owners.

Hey, I want the money out there too....which is why I am trying really hard to convince you change your methodology so that you are successful!

I deal with this exact thing day in and day out in a Fortune 50 company in the real world. Getting people to agree do things for their own good despite the fact they don't want to is half my job it seems like.

It seems that your total lack of receptivity to any suggestions to improve the situation suggests this is more of an ego thing to you than any true desire to get "more money in the field so more products get purchased there for providing a nice, little boost in profits by all ceos and country owners." Step up and give the voters a reason to approve your measures rather than blaming them for not agreeing with you.

He wants to give the money, you want to give the money, so... convince those who don't. This is not a question to educate one individual to society's rules, this is a question of educating a community. You lack perspective.

Time for a 180º ollie.