AVRO DANKASTER
-
Posts
104 -
Joined
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by AVRO DANKASTER
-
-
-
TL;DR - Hey, it ain't much, but it's honest work. Give me a ring for all things gov.
What do I like? The opportunity GTA:W provides. What do I dislike? How time-consuming it can be!
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Greetings!
Contrary to a popular belief, we (The GOV) aren't exactly a group of shadow brokers. Just a few of our recent public use projects include:
- Partial funding, guidance, regulation and management oversight of Los Santos' first casino, in conjunction with the development of a deeper gambling-oriented local legislation based on our findings
- Event Permit forms for everyone to use any city property for their one-off needs which include City Department presence request (PD, FD, but also Cultural Affairs)
- Cultural Affairs initiative to support all artistic roleplayers and cultivate the environment for this niche brand of roleplay to thrive in, helping the artists and art-focused businesses with operational expertise, funds and exposure
- Further development of the public works department, especially the Bureau of Transit, increasing the roster of the active drivers & dispatchers (still hiring!)
All of that is on top of our flagship economic project - grants and credits scheme available to all registered business - which is in full swing (almost, we have two applications on hold as of right now) and the licensing and registration platform, managed and maintained by our employees, and the routine operation of the city departments.
The City Council situation is a tricky one - the legal roleplay scene is still relatively fresh and fragile as far as impactful positions go, however myself and FM are working with all interested parties to facilitate a smooth transition to electability. Our current framework is based on gathering all interested parties to build a council infrastructure within the districts - and by interested parties, I refer to anyone who has been in touch regarding any council initiatives with myself or the server administration. The process is still in works, so if you are interested in all things City Council - don't hesitate to let us know!
I'm happy to answer all inquiries regarding government business, activity and plans - be it here, over forum PM's or in a Discord chat. Perhaps I should update my forum signature to carry this message far and wide.
Anyway, to wrap it up - we're not omniscient. We don't know everything nor do we know the ultimate best solution for every problem and/or situation we might encounter - and if you feel like you have something to talk about, please, please, please - reach out! I'm glad to exchange ideas and concepts any day of the week.
-
1
-
1
-
-
17 minutes ago, ALT2 said:
There isn't an easy way to contact government. Just to get hold of the treasurer I had to ask around for 2 days on Discord because there wasn't any information on how to receive the funds or who to send information to. Luckily you came along and helped me out in that.
We've introduced both live chat and offline message capabilities to the site based on situations like that. It's not as good as a round-the-clock live chat but it works, we hope. ?
-
2
-
-
49 minutes ago, ALT2 said:
Construction was complete which was when the company had to wait over 1 week to get payment, then as the plan stated, funds would be needed in order to get inventory - which was never fulfilled. No other documentation was ever asked for other than the official documents from the construction company stating they finished the job - therefore - funds for construction were released, but not for the rest.
This shows how the current system does not work and how this topic raises a lot of good questions and resolutions.
I was supposed to pay back that money too, which I did. Did ya'll ever keep track of that? Probably not. No offense to you and don't take it as an attack personally, I'm just pointing out the flaws within the government.
We review our faction bank logs to help us keep track of the incoming transactions, not to mention the payment reports on gov.gta.world that we ask for.
You didn't receive the funds because we've received no documents - if you are unsure as to how or what to send, you could've simply contacted us.
And yes, the economy as a whole doesn't work. All we have here is a disagreement about the fundamental choices we have to make going forward.
-
On 2/13/2019 at 11:57 PM, Smilesville said:
So you made the decision to kick the can down the road because "that was in place for far longer than I am." No government in the history of the world has ever only spent money on employee paychecks, and that's part of what a tax bleed is designed to simulate - the purchase of expendable materials for the upkeep of roads, for instance. Until a point in time comes that the economy becomes closed circle, having only cash influx without a cash drain will inevitably result in the ridiculousness you get so defensive about.
If we want to take this to the logical extreme, the entire government system is an OOC construct that was installed because someone, somewhere thought we needed it. Where did taxes go before that? The original purpose of the tax system was to offset the capital generated by the script to keep a relative balance - and the very existence of the government faction throws that balance out the window.
The quality of roleplay has no bearing on how the script brings in tax revenue. What it sounds like you're saying is "if only everyone would spontaneously roleplay better, then this would be fixed." You can throw away that little pipe dream now; the best we can do is encourage people to act in a realistic manner by providing them a scripted incentive to do so.
What makes you think salaries and government programs are our only expenses? For example, running fees for things like Palmer-Taylor Power Plant - millions a month to emulate the costs of electricity generation which we consider within the property tax have been agreed upon a long time ago. I'm not kicking the can down the road, I'm merely stating that the current state of things was designed in an OOC manner before I've assumed my IC position, yet here you are trying to lay it down at my feet. More than a year ago, I've highlighted the problems within our economy but I haven't found much support.
What I'm saying is that if people would choose to spend their money in ways that support roleplay projects, businesses would become financially viable. They don't do that, and that's a roleplay quality issue. Our disagreement stems from the fact you consider a script solution a better one, while I prefer a solution based on working with the players themselves.
That's my opinion and I'm sticking with it, because so far I've had better results working with the people rather than the script.
On 2/13/2019 at 11:57 PM, Smilesville said:But that's not what I said, is it? I said their incomes were out of proportion - specifically, in relation to other incomes on the server.
I'd be fine with slowing the server down that much. I'll say this - that would make adding new scripted items for purchase much easier to transpose from their real-life counterparts.
Until very recently, the salaries were lower than what any freelance job would net you on a per-hour basis, and from what I've gathered most of the freelance jobs still pay similar (if not greater) amounts.
Then we're in agreement, as weekly paychecks is something I've suggested before.
On 2/13/2019 at 11:57 PM, Smilesville said:Reduction of the paychecks result in a system much more in line with the rest of the server - specifically, that people have roughly equivalent income levels and have to budget to purchase the things they want. It doesn't fix economic issues, it fixes people issues.
How can you say in the same breath that you find the script in question "incredibly dumb" and then not want to fix it?
Lenient or no, that money has to be paid back. It sounds like covering construction under grants could solve both of your issues of "we have too much money to spend" and "we want to help businesses" at the same time, but you prefer instead to inflate paychecks. Why, if not for the sake of hand picking winners and losers in the economy?
I don't think we're understanding each other here. I'm against small changes that aren't connected. I'm for a coherent economic plan - which isn't what's being suggested here.
I'm not against fixing the script. I'm against fixing parts of it as a reactionary effort, which is what's being suggested here. Changes like this led to the situation we're in right now (eg. road tax introduced to curb high-end vehicle use)
I've shifted away from doing construction under grants program (that's how it started) after a series of fraud incidents. That's an IC circumstance that my government is facing, and that's the response I've opted for.
On 2/13/2019 at 11:57 PM, Smilesville said:Combating inflation is not equivalent to shrinking the economy. A house in Venezuela is not worth more than a mansion in the United States simply because the former costs a greater number of bolivars to purchase than a mansion would dollars.
I remember people being upset at the notion of a $50 beer. Now, that's practically half price. Of course the prices have changed - perhaps not through script items, but items of adjustable cost most certainly have.
We don't have two different currencies in play here. On that note, a house in Venezuela can be worth more than a mansion in the United States if the said amount of bolivars is greater than the quoted amount in USD per the exchange rates.
On this server, by removing money out of circulation you decrease the total value of the economy by that amount - which would lead to deflation of that currency (increase in purchasing power of one unit of it) if the prices weren't fixed. Almost everything on the server is considered fixed-price, including most of the production mechanisms and supply purchases, hence the whole statement of "combating inflation" is ridiculous.
In real life, removing money out of circulation does not affect the output generated by the economy as a whole. Here, it does - as the output of the economy is the action of converting money into supplies. If you decrease the total amount of money, the amount of money you can convert into products - as that's how our economy works - decreases. Hence the potential output of the economy decreases. In other words, it shrinks.
The $50 beers were prices commanded by the business owners and the price mostly consists of profit - the price of acquisition didn't change, and that's what ultimately we look at when looking at inflation statistics.
On 2/13/2019 at 11:57 PM, Smilesville said:Have you considered that, perhaps, the low quality of roleplay isn't that employees aren't spending their exorbitant salaries on expensive things, but because the individual responsible for the budget doesn't care that he's paying them many times over their actual market value? The legal org members who're actually decent roleplayers just ignore that bank account number and go on as they always have without expensive cars or spending exorbitantly. Your rationale for keeping things the way they are anticipates that the recipients of those paychecks will spend them in a fashion unsuitable for their character, thereby lowering the quality of play for each of these individuals - and the organization as a whole.
If you were playing an officer, I guarantee you that the mentality of "if I have all this money in my bank account, so I may as well spend it" would not be tolerated. We have evidence of this; plenty of players have been reprimanded for it.
If you truly believe that it's acceptable for a beat cop to have the most expensive vehicles on the server, I'm wasting my time explaining the rest of this.
The legal faction salaries are being reworked from a script perspective (the on/off duty counter), and that's something I've brought up on page two of this thread. Additionally, given that our tax revenue is decreasing due to the script jobs revamp, the salaries will most likely go down. Not until I fully examine the city income patterns for the current period. I simply disagree with the logic of the argument you're presenting.
What I believe is that it's okay for a beat cop to be a customer. No players were reprimanded for being customers, and that's precisely what I'm stating they should be - customers, primary spenders. Not buying things from script-ran dealerships or properties, but being the customers of player-ran businesses. Interact with others. Roleplay. Is that what you consider unsuitable? Being a customer?
-
35 minutes ago, ALT2 said:
* Cough* I'm still owed $625,000 for my business start up with government credit and it's been 3 months *Cough*
Are you sure you've sent the documents we've asked for?
Edit: I've checked, and no. Beyond the initial $125,000 we've released for the first stage of construction based on your application, we've received no additional documentation regarding the construction process, hence the funds weren't released.
-
4 minutes ago, Velora said:
When shall we expect jobs within Gov to open up. so that we all can take part in the incentives?
The Public Works Department was hiring just last week, the Bureau of Public Transit will be in the upcoming week or two. I'll resume hiring for the remainder of the departments after I fully establish the legal grounds for their operation through the new charter and ordinance.
Meanwhile, I encourage you to simply send in your resume to the directors of the departments you're interested in as a proactive way of getting your character's name into the conversation.
-
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:
he fact that salaries are an incentive program is self-evident; in a true economy your assertion might be correct, but you neglect to factor in limits of the talent pool. In other words, increasing pay does not automatically assure the quality of the candidates for the position - and again, vetting for these organizations is extremely poor or nonexistent. Sufficient workforce figures could be maintained at much lower funding levels, and if blowing out the budget isn't resulting in higher quality candidates, why do it? And I believe we have our answer here:
You're addressing an IC argument in an OOC manner? Why?
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:I have been tame on this point, but "the economy" isn't favoring a group - you are favoring a group. This is self-aggrandizing nonsense in which you deign to determine that government employees should comprise a class of primary spenders. This is so far removed from reality as to create the ridiculous scenarios I'd outlined earlier. The economy isn't just "broken." It's nonexistent outside the relationships of suppliers to everyone else.
What decision have I made to favour the group? The economy favours the group of people within the active cycle. Currently, there's only one active cycle - which is between the taxes and the government payrolls. That's by design that's in place for far longer than I am. The people in that cycle are the primary spenders - which would not be an issue if their expenditure didn't return back to me as tax and/or was frozen on their accounts, but instead was used to support the tertiary economy. Which is an issue, first and foremost, of LOW ROLEPLAY QUALITY. Not economics.
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:You're wildly mischaracterizing what I want to see - which is a lower barrier to entry for new businesses. The new regulations for construction businesses is a step in the right direction, but how does this relate to reduction in legal organization salaries at all? If someone wants to pour endless hours into a business that generates no profit, well, that's their decision to make - that's hardly utopian. Generating good RP is the first priority of the server, even over the economy - and so if it has to be slightly unrealistic with regards to the ease of starting a business? So be it.
I'm not mischaracterizing anything, what you're asking for is continuous support for businesses for which there is otherwise no interest because of the perceived "RP value" they bring to the table. And I disagree with that concept.
I don't understand what your problem is here. You can create any business that you want and its creation will be supported financially by the government for a fair period of time (months, most often), during which you're supposed to spark enough interest among the players for them to make use of your services. If your business generated no interest, why should it exist? What roleplay does it generate? It's the lack of a culture of spending to support the projects people like that's the problem. Not the economy.
Lowering legal organisation salaries only reduces the total amount of money your potential customers can spend during any given period of time.
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:Before you explode with accusations of COMMUNISM, I would encourage you to take the entirety of my statement at face value and stop making wild extrapolations. Literally none of what you've just said has been what I've suggested, so I'll summarize my problems succinctly:
- The income of legal organizations is out of proportion with the server and with reality.
- The script encourages the same mundane business models (bars.)
- The government programs cannot address issues with the script.
That's it. That's the totality of the issues I have. Any point I've ever made in this thread has been extrapolating one of these points or proposing a solution for it. So what are our solutions?
1. The income of legal organisations equals the taxes we collect. If we can afford to pay the salaries from the amount we're collecting, the salaries are in line with the economy of the server.
They aren't in line with the reality, because if they were, we'd be forced to consider salaries of roughly $900 to $1000 /a week/ to be the gold standard, and I haven't noticed anyone advocating for the slowing down of the pace of the server that much.
2. and 3. The script encourages them by paying them fees for customer visits regardless of whether the customer was satisfied, used the services within or anything else. And I've already stated that I find this idea incredibly dumb. And no, I can't address that issue because I lack the access to the backend which would permit me to take away the script payments from the businesses that have received it.
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:- Reduce the paychecks of legal organization members.
- Rework the script of the entry fee to remove the thousand dollar bonuses you receive per person and find a way to incentivize behavior that the server itself wishes to incentivize - RP. I proposed scaling profits based on how many people remained within a business for a period of time - you told me the government programs would remove the need to fix the script. It has not, by any stretch of the imagination.
- Don't pretend the government programs can fix the script.
Reduction of the paychecks doesn't result in anything but a change of perception of what is considered "wealthy" on the server. Don't pretend it fixes any root cause of the issues with the current economy.
Reworking the script - no. Work with the players instead. Choice, not coercion. Otherwise, again, we fall into the trap of a centrally planned economy.
The government programs are in place specifically to decrease the start-up costs of the businesses, and they do that job exceptionally well.
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:We've been inflated for a long time. We can trickle money and lower script prices until things come in line with reality.
By trickling money out we shrink the economy as a whole which would result in less room for businesses to operate. I thought you wanted more of businesses to be able to operate freely. Also, no. I don't recall the prices changing that much since the start of the server.
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:Roleplay quality should not automatically translate to an increased paycheck. "It is what it is" is not an acceptable answer from someone in place to change it. Of course the devaluation is perceived.
Perhaps you should take a second or two more to think over your response, then. "It is what it is" is a reference to the fact there are admin restrictions in place.
I've specifically stated that the high salaries are the result of high government income and that the low roleplay quality is an issue because the high salaries aren't utilized by the employees as the should. Nowhere did I say that high roleplay quality translates into a higher paycheck. What I've said is that higher roleplay quality translates into positive economic trends as people are more aware to how important it is for them to support other roleplayers with their spending.
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:Then explain how my assertion is incorrect rather than saying "you don't know because you weren't there."
The requests I receive cover the needs of the department, the current rosters, and planned spending for the period in question. The actual budgets are planned accordingly to the department position quotas and certified lists we've determined while entering the office. All other expenditures are limited and require full breakdown of reasoning behind it, fleet maintenance figures have been determined through observation of fuel expenditures over a period of time, any civil liability payments trigger immediate re-review of the IA proceedings, and many, many more steps like that which permit me to examine and determine every unit of appropriation for the period in question.
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:A sizable plurality, perhaps even the majority, join for the paychecks - IC and OOC. If you disagree, limit budgets and see how fast they leave.
The budgets are limited. You're asking for a paycheck reduction, and I'm not touching that until the administration is done with their revamp.
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:Because it's wildly unrealistic and self-perpetuating by the people making the decisions.
It's not unrealistic from an economic point of view. It's not my role to enforce roleplay standards all across the server, it's to utilize the government resources to the best of my ability and develop a working government administration which can be the bedrock of the legal roleplay on the server.
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:You fix that by having the script recognize when players are "choosing" a business.
You fix that by encouraging players to make a decision and transfer the funds to the business they support.
1 hour ago, Smilesville said:The script is a tool. Use the tool to encourage behavior you want and discourage behavior you don't. Metaphorically, you can't build a house without people, but you also can't build a house without tools - we need both, not one or the other.
I'd much rather encourage the behaviour I want by convincing the player population that it is beneficial for everyone to do so rather than coercing them to do something through the script. Roleplay has always been about the freedom of doing what you want, and what you're suggesting goes against that. Hence, the fundamental disagreement.
-
Salaries aren't an incentive program and nowhere did I state that they are. The expectation of the best possible service is supported by the fact that by paying a comparatively high salary increases the average quality of work by increasing the total amount of applicants - that permits for selectiveness while maintaining sufficient workforce figures, and that's the logic my character uses to support the current levels of expenditure.
On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:The exact manner in which the government system works is neither here nor there with regards to the topic at hand - the overarching point I sought to make is that it is not an appropriate replacement for the way the script itself works. I can see the benefit it could potentially provide to a subset of businesses, yet my primary gripe is that these tend to be far too restrictive. The idea that financial solvency in a patchwork economy is the first priority is a little backwards, in my opinion. We should be more concerned with the RP a business creates rather than whether or not it can pay back its credit.
Unrealistic? I can acknowledge that, but I'm coming to the conclusion that a certain suspension of disbelief is required to achieve an atmosphere in which we have the optimal amount of creative freedom.
Here's the thing - either we're talking about a coherent economy, or we start disconnecting certain aspects of it from each other because of "creative freedom". We can't have both. The expectation of profitability for a business has to exist or nothing will make sense anymore. It's not about suspension of disbelief - it's about the core values on which we're building the economy. What you're basically hinting at - and, I'll simplify here a little - is a utopian system of enterpreneurship in which the idea itself is sufficient for your business to exist indefinitely, regardless of how good or bad you are at actually excecuting the said idea.
We shouldn't be focused on what RP the business generates if we're talking about the economy. Because if that's the case, we'll be falling into the trap of a centrally planned economy in which we have to determine the viability and profitability of every business idea ever, and then constantly tinker with the balance sheet of the said business for it to stay accurate and reflect the previous profitability quota. Do I need to mention how problematic that would be? And before we talk about suggesting, let's say, dividing the businesses into categories of income and addressing it that way? That's just group politics and on a purely ideological level, I disagree with it because of how detrimental to individual performance it would be.
What my programs do is simple and in line with my own attitude - you're free to start any business you want, and we're more than happy to be an incubator for you and cover your expenses for a set period of time. But, eventually, the execution of your idea will have to be good enough for your business to continue purely on its own merits.
On top of that, you constantly seem to understate just how lenient the government is with funding for businesses. We're well aware of how difficult it is at the moment, but it does not mean we will remain inconsistent. We expect profitability. However, the credits we offer are interest-free and split into so many payments no business would ever have a problem with making them on time if they put in a modicum of effort. You'd know that if you'd pursue that path.
On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:[...] or remove a portion of taxes generated from the economic loop. Rather than receiving all of the road tax paid on a vehicle, for example, the government would only receive half of it for redistribution with the rationale that the other half actually goes to maintaining roads as a matter of upkeep for the city.
The idea of removing part of the taxes from circulation is one of the most misguided I've ever heard. It would mean the economy would be haemorrhaging money, and given the fact the removal of server-side payment script jobs is imminent, it would eventually result in a massive decrease of money supply in circulation. Don't forget that the prices are static, and neither inflation nor deflation applies, and with the decrease in money supply, we'd eventually reach a point in which there is no longer sufficient amount of cash in circulation to purchase anything. A long-term solution which isn't sustainable can't be possibly considered sound economics.
On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:I'm not sure I agree that government employees "supercharge" growth; there's nothing I've witnessed to suggest that they pay more at an establishment than any other individual. More often than not, the money ends up hoarded until the gov employee in question 1) drops a disproportionate amount on someone or something, 2) purchases a house or vehicle so obscenely expensive that the staff steps in, or 3) quits the organization, changes the name of their character, and buys whatever they so desire. The very fact that staff have to monitor the purchases of legal org employees is indicative of a problem with the levels of pay they're receiving.
Be so kind as to not misrepresent my argument. I've said that they can supercharge it, not that they supercharge it at the moment. They don't, due to a plethora of factors, most of which aren't anywhere near the realm of economics. And,no. It's not an indication of a problem with the levels of pay, it's the indication of a general disconnect between layers of the economy AND a roleplay quality issue. High salaries they receive are warranted by the current state of the economy, and the fact the ways in which they can spend it are restricted is silly. But, it is what it is and given the said restrictions are in place, I shall use them imposed by the administration further down as an argument against the claims of actual (not perceived) devaluation caused by government employees.
On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:I am cautiously optimistic that tax cuts will sort out some of the issues we've been having, but part of my problem also stems from the fact that those of us in positions to do so should use that authority to safeguard the economy. Rather than approving a budget based on the number of members and their activity levels and approving advances on the next budget when theirs run out, why not force them into a corner by curbing the budget and refusing to raise their spending limits? Again, tax cuts will certainly have that effect, but the problem could be remedied much sooner at the budgeting level. Hell, "we're about to pass tax cuts so we need to build up a safety net of revenue" isn't such a bad reason to start doing that either.
I suppose "be the change you want to see" is what I'm getting at, there.
I'm sorry, but it's not the first time you bring this up, so I feel like I need to be brusque. You don't know how the city budgets are handled and you've never made any effort to contact us about what we, as the office of the mayor, do with the budget requests we receive from the departments.
I can't possibly take your argument seriously if all you do is create a strawman and misrepresent the reality.
On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:From multiple discussions with several individuals involve in legal organizations at many different levels, I can assure you that the vetting is minimal at best - the police department has long had issues with RP quality to the point where "robocop" is a meme. Even if they did go around spending the money as quickly as they could, I wouldn't necessarily think that to be an appropriate portrayal of their character - it's not a scenario they can win, and I understand that.
What you bring up about the "robocop" meme. How's that anything beyond a roleplay quality issue? How do you expect an economy change to improve roleplay quality? It goes the other way around, positive change in roleplay quality improves the economy.
On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:My suspicion is that when the paychecks drop, the issue with subpar RP will be self-correcting. That is, the primary motivating factor for the people we don't want in these organizations is the large bump in pay, and when their checks start falling in line with what everyone else on the server makes, their numbers will start to dwindle. As the primary motivating factor of the ranks becomes RP quality, this will be an attractive feature to draw in others who have misgivings about the organization(s) at present. Personally, I would love to get involved in some proper detective and/or forensics RP but the amount of nonsense and bad company I would have to endure to get there is simply not worth it.
I'll humour your claim that a decrease in government salaries will improve the roleplay quality. The end result will be a pool of people who know how to spend their money "better" - that is, supporting your local businessess - but have less of it to go about.
That said, I disagree with your claim. People do not join the government agencies for money - they do so because of the streamlined roleplay experience it provides. You don't have to worry about creating your own roleplay when the whole server population does it for you, every day. We're talking about the OOC level here, of course. On an IC level, I maintain that high salaries bring in more applicants, which in turn permits for selectiveness.
On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:You view government payrolls as creating primary spenders. I view them as creating an artificial aristocracy.
Arguing semantics is such a pointless endeavour. They have money that they can spend, and they got it from the government - hence, primary spender.
On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:But again, the line detailing the plan about tax cuts leaves me hopeful about this exchange, and I certainly look forward to seeing these problems disappear if the solution truly is so easy.
I don't recall saying there's anything easy about fixing it. Tax cuts will translate into lower government spending, which in turn can translate into lower salaries. None of which addresses the lack of spending, the fixed prices and unlimited supply conundrum, the lack of proportion between acquisition price for perishables and more expensive assets and all the other of dozens of economical inconsistencies GTA:W has generated over its lifespan.
Tax cuts alone will not fix the economy. That's why I've said your thread isn't about fixing the economy, it's only about lowering the government salaries because your perception of social status isn't what you'd like it to be due to how high they are at the moment. I'm solving your problem, not fixing the economy. You will no longer feel that the wealth you've accumulated is somehow worth less because fewer people will have the means to live the way your character does.
On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:To reiterate the points above, despite no new funds entering the economic loop, they devalue the currency of everyone around them. They result in a situation in which it is impossible to portray the character they've created. They lure in individuals of sub-par quality that end up comprising a sizable portion of these orgs.
The devaluation claim is inaccurate and doesn't take into account how this server economy is currently designed. How do they devalue the currency of people around them if they are restricted on what properties can purchase, and there is no scarcity of supply for anything except properties, prices for which are predetermined by the administrators and heavily regulated afterwards? Moreover, nearly all other prices on the server are STATIC, which is another fact inconsistent with your statement, as if the prices always remain the same, the purchasing power of one dollar is not decreased regardless of the amount of currency in circulation. It's only about the perception - which you've highlighted before, but for some reason strayed away from here.
On 2/13/2019 at 3:36 AM, Smilesville said:But the largest issue I have is that there is no comparable path to financial success.
Why is it an issue?
There is one - solo ownership of a mainstream, script-crutch supported business. Which is fucking stupid and I hate every second of it. It shouldn't be the place of the script to determine the profitability of the business, but the players. But, oh well. The circumstances are what they are, and it was considered to be an essential part of the economy. That's besides the point.
There's one point on which I agree with you - the economy, at the moment, isn't what it should be, and requires a lot of work across nearly all aspects of it. But the things suggested in this thread are so far out from what I consider a valid economic policy that most of them aren't even wrong.
The real problem here is the fact that regardless of what we do with the government salaries, there are far more pressing roleplay quality issues among our community. All niche businesses will fail as there are no customers to compete for and all other businesses will optimize to make the best use of whatever script crutch we throw out there because of misguided economy "ideas" brought up in threads like this. It's detrimental to roleplay to involve the script patchworks. Period.
-
1
-
-
Alright. Let's clarify a few things first.
We fund the construction costs through the credits program. I don't recall being asked about what our definition of construction costs is, but it does feel like there are a few misconceptions regarding it in place already. The definition of "construction costs" we use is the grand total quote provided and includes materials, labour and overheads. It does not mean the price set by property management and I don't recall ever stating that it does.
We run all construction (and existing property acquisitions) through the credits program for a simple reason - should a business fail, we can utilize the leasing agency to have the building reused by another person. Another project. I see no reason to permit people whose business endeavour failed to keep their property. And by taking the property, we effectively erase the liability of the original requesting party towards the government. No harm, no foul.
The grants are specifically in place to cover advertising costs, initial hiring, minor fleet adjustments, all perishables and running costs of the business so you can take your idea and run with it. The credits are in place to cover all major purchases - construction or existing property, vehicles, you name it. Again - we use the credits whenever the asset purchased can be reused by another person at a later date should the initial requester's project fail.
We're quite open-handed with the program funds, and I don't think I ever dismissed anyone coming to us with a question, be that IC or OOC.
Now, to the core argument. There are major issues as far as the design of the economy goes. How the prices of perishables are out of proportion compared to more expensive purchases, for example. A lack of coherent economic thought throughout the process is clear to me - as I've said in another thread, most of the economy changes seem like patchwork, reactionary efforts to circumstances frowned upon by the administration rather than the implementation of a plan. Which resulted in an overtaxed population which supports the current level of government salaries.
However, what is absolutely essential to understand here is the fact that no "new" money enters the system. It does not increase the total supply of money on the server. It is not "printing money". It's redistributing it, and at the moment, too much of it is being redistributed.
This is what you should be starting this thread with. The root cause of the problem. That's why our first order of business after rewriting the lost City Charter is an ordinance that constitutes tax cuts all across the board. It's not that the salaries are too high, it's the fact that we, as the government, can afford to pay the salaries that high. We can pay high salaries, so we do. It's the logical thing to do from an IC point of view to spend as much as we can to provide the best possible service - and again, not a single budget request was actually approved in full without a comprehensive summary and reasoning behind it. Hell, government employees which earn a lot can become clients of local businesses and supercharge the economic growth of the city.
Here's how I see it - government payrolls create a layer of primary spenders. Taxes converted into salaries, which are in hands of people who are most often vetted both IC and OOC and encouraged to roleplay fleshed-out characters, which, I hope, includes the modicum of selflessness as far as the spending patterns and support of roleplay goes. In the perfect world, all of the people paid by the government would be the first-in-line customers of all local businesses. But, often enough, they are not - and here's where I see one of the areas where we can improve. That's a problem of... well. Subpar roleplay ability of some of the people in question, really. Even though there are limitations in place as to what they can and can not buy, they can't turn them into happy-go-lucky customers they could be. There's a lot of work to be done in this area.
It's not "Fixing The Economy" that this thread is addressing. It addresses the perceived unfairness of the system because the current state of the economy favours another group that happens to not be you. But, if you look at it from a point of view of an economist, by decreasing the government salaries, all you do is removing money out of the pockets of your potential clients without putting it back into yours.
Focus on the actual root cause. Discussing how to address the symptoms is counterproductive and boring.
And to wrap it up: the main post just takes it at face value for some reason, so here's a question: Why are the high salaries paid by GOV agencies a problem, again?
-
1
-
-
A brewing license is a script tool that covers the utilization of the script to brew alcohol. Period. You need it to not have your brewing equipment/brewed alcohol seized.
If you want to sell your liquor, you need an actual liquor sales license that we offer. What you can do without the license is give your alcohol away for free or consume it on premises when they are considered inaccessible or of limited access to the public.
Of course, the underage sobriety laws are applicable here.
-
8 hours ago, Smilesville said:
There's an inherent problem with this statement you're missing - if high command is able to donate enough money to cover the entirety of a department's budget, this only proves that we have a massive issue with paycheck amounts.
The manner in which revenue is drawn into the city is highly unrealistic as it is; there's really no scarcity to contend with that would make any IC actions surrounding a government agency's budget contentious in the least. I'd be willing to wager that it doesn't have to spend money on unemployment checks that go to players every hour either, despite this is (realistically) where they would come from. Perhaps the road taxes lumped into the GOV's bank account, rather than being eaten by the server with the assumption that they go to, you know, road maintenance.
On an anecdotal note, I've not been terribly impressed with what I've seen from the GOV faction thus far. If the half-cocked nature of particular IC events is indicative of what goes on behind the scenes, I have very little confidence that budgets are being done in a manner that is mindful of the balance of the economy - it seems more likely to me that a budget is justified by the absurd paycheck amounts and approved on that basis, though I could definitely be wrong. I'm glad that an examination is being done of the state of the city's finances, however.
None of this is anyone's fault in particular, either - we simply have an imperfect system and are feeling the ramifications of something that could be solved very easily. However, for one reason or another that I've outlined above, we seem to refuse to do it.
I believe I should've formulated my previous post with more clarity. They've pooled a sufficient amount of money to keep it running without GOV funding for a day and a half as I refused to fill their bank account without next month's budget request on the table. They wouldn't be able to keep it running for more than four days, give or take a few hours, even after spending every dime of private funds they have.
There are problems with the design of the payment scheme for the departments, one of which is that it doesn't differentiate between an hour on-duty and off-duty. That's a known problem which is being worked on for quite some time now. The delay is caused by - from my understanding - the fickleness of the script.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The government covers the welfare AND the basic income expenditures both from our faction bank balance.
The government revenues are the collected taxes and licensing fees. Period. If people do not continue to generate taxable income, wealth or assets, our revenue drops. In other words, our taxes are limited by the amount of activity and the type of activity players commit to. Therefore, the city revenue can be scarce. It simply exceeds our current expenditures by sufficient amount as to not be a problem. In other words, we're running a surplus.
Is it unrealistic for a municipality with sufficient revenue to appropriate all funds per the departmental requests to guarantee the best possible service to its citizens?
On a side note, we never actually approved a request in full.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Road taxes... aren't used to cover road maintenance. They are considered general taxation and are appropriated as so. That, of course, doesn't stop us from developing towards this area of roleplay - The Department of Public Works runs road maintenance operations on a moderately regular basis (although I admit, most of our field employees are within the US timezone).
______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Why don't we discuss the background of the events that are brought up as the pinnacle of government corruption?
The establishment in question was making full use of all government possibilities we've presented to the public. Simultaneously, it refused to acknowledge the licensing requirements introduced on the very same platform used for the grants and subsidies it enjoyed. Was the situation escalated unnecessarily? Possibly. Was there room for a civilian complaint? Very well might have been. But, given the fact that the people strongest condemning our activity were the ones most actively sipping on our Kool-Aid when it was money-flavoured? That we have received zero civilian complaints about the situation - more than that, the claims were of no civilian complaint system being in place? And any sort of roleplay was tossed out of the window in favour of unsuccessful admin interventions as soon as trouble arose on the horizon? Hell, not to mention I've been contacted by the administration to explain myself as to why people that never were in the government act one way or another.
Well, I'm a firm believer in common courtesy. Extend me yours, and I shall extend you mine. It's quite difficult for me to understand how extrapolating a narrow situation in which no communication was exchanged between myself and anyone across the aisle leads to a broad judgement of all government activities. I wouldn't even mind that much that the situation in question was stopped twice for administration to review it - in both cases, our argument and the actions taken afterwards were considered a properly roleplayed endeavour. However, given the backlash we've received is of an OOC nature and seems like an attempt at discrediting us more than bringing up valid concerns after conducting careful research of our activities, I can hardly assume the perspective in which the Government is The Evil Eye and its servants without disagreeing with the mildly dishonest approach and combative attitude used to convey them.
I'd greatly appreciate if the next time you have doubts about our policies, expenses, or, anything at all, really - you contacted us beforehand to discuss your findings, concerns or questions. I believe it would spare you quite a bit of writing.For example, I invite you to contact us so you can sit in during one of the budget appropriation meetings. Matter of a fact, I invite anyone who's interested. We're here as much for you as we are for ourselves.
-
Budget appropriations are held to a standard. Most recent example - LSPD underestimated their budget request for the 16/DEC to 16/JAN period and the high command ended up donating their own money to keep the paychecks flowing.
No funds leave the city treasury without a written budget request and a record of an IC appropriation meeting to discuss the request, and we sure as hell aren't refilling anyone's coffers outside of the requests.
We'll be closely examining city revenues over the next month or two. Only after we've gathered sufficient information we will determine whether to institute a hiring freeze, payroll cuts, tax increases (or decreases) or any other method of adjustment of municipal budget.
At the moment, the revenues of the city exceed the expenditures.
-
1
-
1
-
-
I was under the impression most of the changes you've mentioned here were heralded as the efforts to undermine the patterns of unrealistic spending. What I'm hinting at is it isn't a planned, rehearsed economy policy but a reactionary effort to the roleplay quality and OOC circumstances, from the lack of a better phrase.
Which isn't how economy should be done, of course.
Quote"how can you sell a $600,000 property to flesh out the story of your character and engage in business RP that is not just empty talk if nobody on the server still has 600k in cash?"
How about, "If nobody has $600,000 in cash, why are there $600,000 properties on the market?". It's just another, small issue that compounds on a number of other, small, issues.
Quote"These sports cars did not become more expensive with the taxes: in actuality, they became cheaper on the market. With the addition of vehicle taxes, maintenance was such a disincentive towards buying expensive cars of any sort that demand shrunk. I saw a Raiden being sold for $250,000 recently, but when bought new from a dealership it will run you close to $430,000 to register and fully modify. [...] 4 weeks later, the result is that they have a cheaper car than I do and $24,000 less in liquid money, whereas I have not lost anything. "
They are cheaper to buy precisely because the maintenance costs have grown. The $20,000 vs $6,000 vehicle tax argument is an argument of "choice". It's only by coincidence you haven't been punished, and, by extension, haven't suffered the consequences of the said choice. Two weeks later, the result is they have another $12,000 less, but your character is a criminal.
Quote"For example, the market for homes has nearly entirely diminished. People cannot afford to buy homes outright any longer, and those who would have done so for profit are discouraged because the housing market has eroded. But people still need places to live: so instead, they are leasing, and all of that money is accumulated by the owner of the property rather than having wealth spread out healthily in the economy via multiple well-off homeowners."
Which is precisely why our government is introducing the affordable housing program - which is players living in the government-built houses, with their rent simultaneously going towards their future buyout price for the property. That aside, there are houses available /right now/ for anyone seeking lodging that are well within the $200,000 starter kit. We can't possibly blame people for taking advantage of the poor decisions of others.
QuoteI have money, why does this matter to me? Because in order to properly engage in business RP that is full and satisfying, there need to be people with sufficient capital to participate in the "upper echelon" of the economy. [...]
It is my belief that the server is simply not established enough for it to accommodate what you'd call the "upper echelon" roleplay. There are ways to work around it, but it all boils down to what I bring up in the summary.
QuoteEvery one of those things has been dismantled by the rate the market has shrunk, and the result is a removal of an upper echelon of economic RP, infinitely approaching a server where there are 5-10 magnates and then 100 cops and robbers.
The market has shrunk because it was artificially pumped up in the first place.
___________________________________________________________
I've made my personal thoughts regarding the economy known in a number of threads. The economy is NOT in the right place. Some of the changes made by the server administrations were right, and some of there were not. While Spencer's post is tackling a very specific area (upper echelon RP), I'd rather cast a wider net.
We need a FULLY FLEDGED economic policy that will address precisely towards what system are we headed, and how do we reach that state. One that will actually be set in stone, followed and worked on.
That's what I consider the crux of the problem here. Bad change is worse than no change.
-
1
-
-
Feature Showcase:Economy system - Government financesInformation
This showcase is an introduction to the government finances and how they interact with the server as a whole.
City of Los Santos, first and foremost, are its’ people. Whether you roleplay a cab driver, a gangster, a miner or a bartender, we all create the living, breathing organism that we call Los Santos.
Currently, there is a single orthodox method for the money to enter the server – and that is through the interaction of the players with the script using the network of script jobs.
Back in the day, a server would also have methods of removing the money from the server – most often called “moneysinks”. GTA:W does away with this idea, instead focusing on having the money that entered the server move between the players, and – if need be – freezing it to cool down the economy as a whole. Government is the most important tool used to achieve this goal.
In general, most of what you do on the server is taxed. Most purchases, your paychecks, even your bank account. More often than not, the tax isn’t designed to be a method of creating extra revenue for the government, but an attempt to regulate the market. Take the road tax as an example – the idea behind it is to discourage spending every penny you have on a vehicle by it carrying a continuous cost with it instead of being a burden-free asset. There are arguments both for and against that tax, but that’s not what we’d like to discuss today.
Back to the taxes: every paycheck you can see the very visible hand of the government reaching into your pocket. I reckon there aren’t many players that truly know all of the places into which the money goes afterwards.
Let’s begin with the mandatory, script payments. For example, do you remember the $5,000 an hour basic income each of you have received at the start? It’s been taken (and still is being taken) directly from the government faction bank account. Effectively, the new players receive a lifeline from the old players – the government is only the conduit.
Up until recently, the LSPD and LSFD wages were deduced directly from the GOV account. Thankfully, we managed to put a stop to that. Right now, we discuss the faction budgets on a monthly (soon to be quarterly) basis. Everything from paygrades of a Police Officer III to an unit cost of a baton, the fuel and maintenance costs of the vehicles – all of the factors that we can reasonably account for are considered into the budget requests, reviewed and addressed in a commensurate manner by the City Government. It’s a solution we feel helps with the immersion for all parties involved – being wasteful /matters/ now.
Finally, there are the actual IC initiatives of the City Government. To give you an example – the government funded a construction of 12 new apartments in Hawick just this last week. All of which will be available to the players to rent, and eventually, buy out. Your tax money is used to support businesses through subsidizing the salaries of roleplay employees that don’t bring much value otherwise, to allow people to purchase the vehicles essential for their business operation (keyword, essential. The government doesn’t tend to approve a fleet of 7 Volatuses for a skydiving school) or to simply give them a little bit of cash to cover the first few months of their office lease.
We would like to take a moment here and remind everyone that you can tap into a plethora of funds through the government Business Stimulus Package – just head to http://gov.gta.world/ and register.
And we can assure you, that all of this is just a start. We’re determined to funnel the tax funds towards active and fruitful roleplay initiatives of all shapes and sizes – don’t be afraid to reach out to the government and our current mayor for more information!
Example of vehicle budgets for the LSFD
-
18
-
2
-
-
11 hours ago, Smilesville said:
Hate to say it, but the supplemental programs just aren't sufficient - and throwing more money at certain companies doesn't solve the issue whatsoever.
Would you like to discuss any specific failures of the program?
-
A script solution where a script solution isn't required.
Franelli brings up valid points when we're discussing theoretical business endeavours and the so-called "standard" school of business management. Businesses should strive to be profitable. But given the limitations of our community and our platform, some sort of an intervention was required for the system to accommodate a larger number of businesses instead of the hyper-specific, currently-in-demand groups. After all, extending the logic of profitability, only the businesses in demand have the right to exist on the server - and that would "optimize away" any creativity.
I didn't introduce in-character solutions that address this exact issue for them not to be taken into account.
Any business owner can use the program government has already rolled out - subsidized jobs which permit you to hire people and pay only a fraction of their salary. The fact that the government shoulders most of the wage-associated costs means even with a very limited customer base you have the potential to generate profit.
That, in conjunction with the business grants and loans we've rolled out, means anyone. And I mean it when I say "anyone". Can start up almost any business. All you have to do is apply for a grant to cover the start-up costs & then apply for subsidies to employ a sufficient amount of personnel at a minimal cost to you.
The problem? Our approach requires a business owner to actually reach out in-character and put in some effort to get the programs going.
I really don't think that holding their hand by scripting around every issue they encounter is what we need. Ultimately, the goal here should be to teach the people who want to run a business... HOW to run a business.
For example, I disagree with the whole concept of getting paid by the script for the fact people show up to your business. It's a patchwork solution at best, aimed at businesses with a set base of operations. It does nothing to help the true player-to-player experience of service-based businesses.
To summarize, my approach is to decrease the costs of running a business to encourage continuous operation, but NOT to allow people to profit from running a business that has no IC demand for it. Any profit that your business generates should be a result of you, convincing other players, to spend their money.
And it is precisely that ability to convince other players that separates the wheat from the chaff as far as businesspeople go.
Therefore, I believe a script workaround is redundant.
-
1
-
-
I'd love to have a ledger available over UCP instead of having to track everything by hand. All for that.
I believe the recent introduction of bank transfers to offline characters pushes the UCP transfer functionality quite far down on the to-do list. It'd be a nice addition, but the time constraints issue has been already solved.
-
11 minutes ago, Franelli said:
I've come across many great suggestions in this topic from several users, however as also stated in one of the earliest comments - whilst not bringing much roleplay to the table, the scripted jobs are needed for new players to make their first pile of cash to spend on whatever their roleplay story requires. Until more roleplay-based jobs are introduced to the gamemode - these need to stay.
With that said, I doubt experienced players keep themselves busy with fishing jobs just for the sake of money, so this is simply one of several methods for new players to start a bit more easily on this server.
1New players receive $200,000 in basic income to "start their roleplay story", rendering this point moot.
-
-
4 hours ago, Alonzo. said:
On LSRP I made my money with biz/houses and vehicle sales. Because there was an economy that could allow such thing and player numbers. Here right now that is not possible to make big earnings from such transactions. Later it will be possible but now its not.
You can't come here and say that IRL jobs work on the server. They don't. Only a minor part of them do, based on what people need (a lawyer, mechanic, house designer, etc.) But don't come around with a big list of jobs that work IRL here, because they don't. No one will hire a janitor, etc. And you can't expect everyone to be a business owner to make money or everyone to deal drugs and sell guns.
I don't enforce grinding because even I don't grind. I am happy with the system of paychecks and after that is over I will figure out IC ways how to make more more but what you are saying the the job list you gave is not going to work here.
There needs to be some help from the script to help people get jobs in agriculture for example and so on.
Wanna bet on that after we see the implementation of the government contracts? The whole purpose of taxation is enabling those roleplay jobs to exist, initially with government support, and later on within the private sector as the money starts flowing.
-
2 hours ago, Alonzo. said:
^ what you say would work in real life and maybe on a server with good number of players but not on a RP server where there are about 80(?) average players. You can twist it and mix it how you want with that RL economical policy, its not going to work here. Most jobs that people do IRL won't get any money here on the server for the players that would do them.
People that share your mindset shaped the LSRP economy for years. Would you prefer that end result?
The system you're addressing hasn't even gotten off of the ground yet, some of the scripts are still in a work-in-progress, and I'm anxiously waiting for our appointed government to address their part of the equation. Should the economic experiment we're conducting here fail, the blame can rest squarely on the shoulders of me and the others who share my hopes.
Call me radical, but this is the system I believe is the best option for actual roleplay development of the community, and if you'd like to discuss the economic theory behind it, be my guest. Stating "It's just not going to work here" is, frankly, beyond the level of discussion we should consider constructive.
Let me restate it clearly - the system is designed to punish grinding and incentivize roleplay jobs. I can not force anyone to buy into the system and start participating, let alone helping build it. All of my posts have a simple goal - planting a seed of doubt in your mind and at least have you try to participate in the economic system we're pushing for instead of dismissing it outright.
-
Spoiler
Asesci-Today at 8:35 PM
help a white nigga out... post something stupid on my retarded community profile, guys; https://forum.gta.world/en/index.php?/topic/692-asesci-alan-maguire-adam-savino-ace-palmwood/1You can find the invoice in your inbox.
-
Vehicle prices and house prices are an issue separate from the tax system. Keep it on topic. Some people disagree with the vehicle price hikes as much as you do (myself included). Moreover, even summing up the top two prices you bring up, $220,000 + $150,000 you still end up under the wealth tax cap with $30,000 in wiggle room for you to use as you please for your spending.
None of the price increases are player-caused. It's all an administrative decision to prevent the server as a whole from burning out economically and I firmly believe the prices will start dropping as the upkeep & vehicle maintenance systems get implemented.
Moreover, the lack of non-script jobs you mention is about to be fixed by the new government contracts legislation. Hell, you can even affect that process IC by interacting with your councilman. It will create the initial layer of wealth redistribution and close the cycle - that, plus the taxes we see will lead to money circulating throughout the community. From there it's up to you to find ways of putting enough of the stream into your pockets to satisfy your character's lifestyle choices.
Final note - the roleplay jobs will not take off until we all don't come together and acknowledge it's the way to go and begin supporting each others' roleplay efforts. It's a community building exercise as much as it is an economic policy. That's why spending is incentivized and hoarding is punished.
-
1
-
[CF 179-20] State of San Andreas v. Bernard Thompson
in Archive
Posted
** Thompson stands up before speaking. **
"I, uh... I would like to ask for a public defender, Your Honor."
((@patty @bartman))