Voting against developement aid (White Giant)

Why?

The issue is plain and simple. Frees dont like seeing others get free cash.

Players are supposed come to members of the Sec con to get aid or to help with there new nations but 100% of the time votes are blocked/slowed by by new players who don't want to see ANYONE get free money. It seems both free/paying members get to vote in public voting.
(Well im personally ok with this)
It should be limited to the top 20players of the world on a maximum.
I've seen where a new player voted no just for the reason of he didn't want someone else getting a free check for 4T.
If the Sec con is to be a fluid part of SC politics and we are to help new players with there nations there needs to be ways for the SC to give aid to those who need it.(please check vote below)

The Security Counil accepted the proposal.
5 council members voted for the proposal and 0 council members voted against it.

Gen

Ah I see...being a free myself I don't see how it would turn someone drowning in debt to become a super power, but some people think in strange ways

i to would like to see more of this money get into the hands of the new players and having the top 20 vote would probably get more of these resolutions past

Things are much better than they were. Although some players vote against, the majority of resolutions get passed these days, on WG at least. There used to be a time when they generally didn't.

I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the players on WG who vote for aid resolutions. If it keeps newer players playing the game, rather than giving up because they get into debt, it's worth doing.

Thank you everyone who regularly takes the trouble to vote for these resolutions to pass!

Hugs and respect

Jo

I vote no because I hate all of you :s No just kidding. I usually miss the votes.

Perhaps General Voting on Development Aid should be restricted to full members.

In fact, why shouldn't all General Votes be restricted to full members? Surely that could only encourage free members to pay. I think the idea of free membership is great for enticing people in, but might need more restrictions for SC to capitalise on it.

I'm sure many of you know the old native indian maxim:

"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for life."

What does giving someone 4T actually do? Let a player play and get in debt again or teach him how to play better?

If it is the latter and it can be shown to be so, then I would support the resolution. However, I have my severe doubts. I'd rather set up a 'help council' to support the guy and give him a new country to start in.

I'm quite content for everyone to vote - that is democracy!

Said by a paying member, plus top 20 in WG.

It's 4T....hardly enough to get philosophical about.

I vote yes on everyone one of the proposals.

This money comes from the deep security council coffers, not out of any players pocket.....screw it...wasting my breath

With rare exception I vote Yes all the time.

Agreed only full members should have a vote.

A council member who proposes someone should also follow it up with mentoring. So the aid is hopefully not wasted.

4T is a small amount to an established player but its a fortune to a new player.

If they have a lot a off miltary expennse and or have thier finiaces a secerect i vote no otherwise I vote yes

Thaifoon, think of it this way. "Teach a man to fish, but he is not strong enough. Give him some food, and he shall be set."

Old players, get on chat and help new players! problem solved

Crafty is right. SC members proposing development aid need to offer mentoring as well. Many of us already do this and oftentimes it is more helpful than the aid itself.

Hugs and respect

Jo

@ Tom
I do
I help anyone who asks in chat. I have a huge wiki page, i have several teaching feds.

Theres other like me to. We are in the chat all the time
Online Users: 529
Members: 93
Visitors: 436
And im the only person in the SC chat ATM.

I can name only 15people who i see in the chat on a regular basis. Maybe the GM needs to rethink how the SC chat works. I know most don't know about it because its a popup and most Internet Browsers block them.

I don't like chat because it disconnects me frequently, and I suggest the GMs replace it with a more stable and modern model. Anything would beat that 1999 polished turd (keep the beer emoticon though)

All I was saying was that rather than debate about new players getting money to learn themselves, older players who perhaps don't bother so much to go on chat should give it a go to maybe give advice. I go on chat whenever I have a spare few mins as I like to socialise with the SC community, and also to get advice. Newer players I notice go on quite frequently...

Im disappointed with the voting This week a vote was taken to ban a scary sounding "Nine_Ten_PhycosBackAgain" player from nukes. What have him I believe isolating players isnt fair.Ban all nukes to all or dont ban any nukes to any player.
Fun and fair to everybody options exist. Being a simulation game wheres the world war or world blockading on his economy/corps?

As far as 4 Trillion untied dollars to aid fools. Im a new player. I investigate every person prior to vote. I look to see to the best of my ability if that person made a mistake they can recover from.

@Chaddik, people who cant fight or are afraid to fight usually try to ban nukes from other players.

Tom, it isn't the chat. It is your unstable connection. I had broadband through the telephone wire and the phone noise disrupts the packet flow intermittently which causes you to disconnect. Also poor signal strength, temporary limited or no connectivity, and rerouting your connection to a different local dns server.

I was getting disconnected even with an external chat client, then I switched to Comcast cable hardline and that headache went away fast.

"If they have a lot a of military expenses and or have their finances a secret, i vote no otherwise I vote yes "

I do the same.

I have a tendency to vote no on the aid proposals. I just find it a waste of my time to go exploring their state and the proposals are so poorly worded that they offer no information of use. If I can't determine from the proposal message if it is valid or not I declare it not and vote accordingly.

"If they have a lot a of military expenses and or have their finances a secret, i vote no otherwise I vote yes "

"I do the same."

Me too.

I also agree that only full members should be able to vote.

"people who cant fight or are afraid to fight usually try to ban nukes from other players."

This is a generalization that is not true all the time. Sometimes people use nukes in an attempt to bully others.