Taxed*

 

How about players can just chose to apply or not apply for the selection.

 

Players will apply no matter what. That's just a fact. If you can get your money back, then there is no reason for someone not to apply. And then by having to find the value of each player, it's just too much work.

 

nvm

 

I'll come up with a system to get a semi-accurate calculation for the wealth of a player. We can automate the process by using various factors (ranks, towns, donations, ect.) that are each given a certain weight. Staff discretion would correct for the outlier cases where the process fails.

Additionally, we can schedule specific times when we review the applications. If we only consider applications once a month, then the burden on staff would be minimized even further.

 

Once a month? If your algorithm is effective an doesn't require much more than putting in a few numbers, then I'm fine. However, I'm rethinking the suggestion. I personally feel that the tax should only be taken during crazy lottos, then I'm fine. But not for an entire day. That would annoy me.

 

Well Mendiboi pretty much implied that 10k means close to nothing to him and that he wouldnt want him to get 10k as oppose to someone where 10k means a lot to them so no, not nessasarily.

 

But the point I'm trying to make is that for an algorithm to be effective, it needs to be accurate. Semi-accurate would work for so long before it would come crashing down. As well, if a Resident is scammed $20k, but mendi is scammed $300k, who gets it? Mendi of course. Why? Because the idea that new players will come, but the old players have to stay is what the ideology of ECC is. Yeah, the algorithm may find that $20k more valuable to the resident, but who is a more "valuable" player as you mentioned earlier on the thread. Mendi, and they would pick him 10 outta 10 times. And there's no questioning that.

 

It isn't as simple as that. We would scale the value of the lost money in terms of marginal utility and not ECD. The 300k might be more valuable to me than the 20k is to the resident. I don't know right now. But I do know that it can be calculated if the equation for overall wealth is accurate enough. I am even going include an adjustment for measurement error in the calculation, so that it is even more fair.

I'm currently very busy with my college finals. But after Wednesday, when my semester ends, I'm going to start trying to work out a solution to this problem. I might come back saying that the idea is completely impractical, or it might work like a charm. I just don't know yet, but I am looking forward to trying it.

 

How are you going to be able to get an accurate number for someone's utility? It's a highly qualitative thing and would just exchanging the objectivity from picking a person based on their own judgement to assigning each person a utility per dollar paid. These two things are more or less the same thing and I don't think that an algorithm is needed to complete this process as I believe that the SAs can make an unbiased decision.

 

Originally I gave another option to something mendboii said, then you come along as basicly say its a dumb idea for X reason. Then I disproved that. Your point there clearly wasn't that this system isn't accurate enough.
Secondly you're just blindly looking for reasons to negate this suggestion as soon as your latest argument gets destroyed so clearly you don't have a very open mind about this topic. Thirdly your claims aren't supported by anything. You say the system will "come crashing down" but you don't even back this claim up with anything.
Fourth even if, in your example, mendboii got picked over a resident even though the algorithm put the resident higher, but mendboii stating the deciding staff would have to stick to the algorithm.
Fifth, I think it's pretty obvious your real reason for not wanting this suggestion to be done is because you're too selfish to pay an extra 5% tax on lotto ONLY ONE DAY OF THE WEEK to help people who have been scammed get back on their feet.

 

There should be no tax hike in the end of it. If people want to donate their money, go ahead, but it's not the people's fault that you were scammed. And if they want to play lottery, there shouldn't be a 20% tax. 5% doesn't sound like a lot, but it is. It's going to drive people away from lotto, so rendering the suggestion fairly ineffective. Yes, people will not play as much, that's set in stone. And again I'll bring up welfare. A server-dependent playerbase is not the way to go about this. It should be a user-dependent playerbase. If you could organize some philanthropists together to help scam victims, go ahead, but don't involuntarily force people to help scam victims.

 

As much as it pains me, I agree with knears on this one :p.
Do not force people into this, knears is correct that anyone who wishes to help scam victims should do so voluntarily.
Not to mention that scamming has been proven to be a necessary evil (the same as the lotto) on this server - a great inflation hedge by removing money from the economy.
I would really prefer to see a council of staff collect donations and distribute in a way they find fair, though I believe this suggestion will still cause more hard feelings with any players not chosen and will result in more players quitting the server.

 

+1
I think this is a great idea!

 

+1 I would be more than willing to help with whatever needs to be done.

 

I'm just putting it out there, if this does get made, I will most likely not play lottery. It ain't my fault you got scammed. Again, instead of putting a tissue over the wound, put on a nice, tight, band-aid. Fix the dang problem for good! The way you people put it it's a hopeless problem to solve. No it's not! Set up tighter rules! Make a scammer list! Anything but this garbage!