| Oct 17 - 19:12:31 |
|
| Post Reply | Post new topic | Page: 1 |
| Fortifications - Refund to Sender | Started by: Grin-07 on May 18, '20 09:58 |
|
Sometimes fortifications balance exceeds the amount required to actually purchase the forts. Nobody is currently able to withdraw money from this fund once it is submitted. I understand there has been reluctance to allow the CL to remove this money as it is intended to be used purely for forts. However, how about an option for them to refund the money back to the person who has submitted it, within say 7 days of it being submitted? This way, no money is lost and the person who erroneously deposited the money gets it back. Thoughts? |
|
| Report Post | Tips: 4 / Total: $1,060,000 Tip |
|
I think people should just not add more money than what's actually needed. you get told on the screen how much is needed in total and how much is needed for each level of forts. If a person decides to ignore all that and just put an X amount of money which exceeds the required, then it's his decision to put his money for that cause and it should be used for future repairing of the crew forts in my opinion. In short, I am not with the idea of using the crew forts as a saving account. (or that's how it looks to me) |
|
| Reply by: Archy at May 18, '20 10:07 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
How it looks to you is incorrect. This exact scenario arose where a member donated money towards crew forts because the HQ was going to be moved and now it isn't. If you are concerned about it being used for savings, make the refund time shorter and only it to people who still have alive accounts. There are no other features on the game where money is trapped. It also makes no sense. What purpose does keeping it trapped serve? "Oh well, tough shit"? I would be happy for that thinking to be applied universally but it isn't at all, we've gone entirely the other way. |
|
| Reply by: Grin-07 at May 18, '20 10:21 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
If the cash has been used to upgrade or repair the fortifications i don't think you should be allowed to revert that transaction as you have gained some benefits from it. Besides that, I have no issues +1 |
|
| Reply by: AidenPearce at May 18, '20 11:26 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
This would be purely for excess cash, not any that has been used for any purpose. So, amounts showing as available within the fortifications balance but unallocated. |
|
| Reply by: Grin-07 at May 18, '20 11:42 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Easy +1 from me. |
|
| Reply by: Kruppe at May 18, '20 11:56 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
-1 Everyone can see when the fortifications are complete. It's obvious when cash is not needed. If a family is moving and the CL guarantees the move .. then the move doesn't happen it is on the CL and anyone else who made the guarantee to refund their member(s), not the game itself. |
|
| Reply by: Mercury at May 23, '20 17:17 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Enthusiastic +1. If nothing else, the fact that HQ fort money is so locked off is inconsistant with the rest of the game. To those arguing against, i note the time when two members if my crew were both setting up fort donations at the same time, which resulted in several million being stuck in that fund due to nothing more then bad timing.
I can see literally no reason nit to do this, and several reasons that it would be smart |
|
| Reply by: Phillli-stein at May 23, '20 20:13 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
+1 obviously. please allow this. |
|
| Reply by: Evening at May 24, '20 04:12 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| +1 for very clearly stated reasons | |
| Reply by: Hawk at May 24, '20 10:19 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I have no problems with the suggestion, but do you guys remember why this was specifically coded in this way? Any suggestions on fixing that scenario from happening again? |
|
| Reply by: Squishy at May 24, '20 18:58 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
I don't actually. Why was it coded this way? |
|
| Reply by: Grin-07 at May 24, '20 19:13 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
Maybe this will help you remember Squishy |
|
| Reply by: Mercury at May 24, '20 20:46 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
| Reply by: Mercury at May 24, '20 20:46 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
According to that thread, a measure was put in to avoid any over donating. Do we know if that is definitely still the case? If so, members should really be taking notice of the message and therefore not donating to the fund. However, if there is a possibility that two members could donate at the same time and have the fund have a surplus, in that case I’d definitely agree the money should be refunded to the member. |
|
| Reply by: Chalk at May 25, '20 16:16 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
Yes, the code was previously put in and the user is warned if they are donating on top of any amount that already hits the max. https://gyazo.com/b4ccf039f7b412fda09b131817efc3ec
This was coded in as a 'member before greedy CL' protection. Like most of our features, they are a direct product of shitty situations by shitty people who were allowed to continue doing shitty things by other shitty people who through inaction, encouraged that level of shitty greed. There was a time where users started increasingly agitated that money they would send up ear marked for certain things were spent on other things. Example: heres 15 million to put towards forts to provide added defense for all of our lower members. Instead the CL put that 15 million towards a few BGs for his friend. The user chooses specifically to give it towards forts or fort repairs rather than general donations/tributes for a reason. This level of frustration reached a boiling point and it caught my ear, so it was coded in that a user can give money for a specific cause and that money will now have to actually be used for that cause. If the member wants the money used for other purposes they would give it it as a general donation, or overpay their taxes, they wouldn't go out of their way to specifically make sure its just for protection of all the smaller members of their family. I do not feel a crewleader should be able to override the wishes of the member who donated the money specifically for forts. The users go into this knowing the money is only used for forts, and they are warned that any excess money can only be used for forts. I would rather code it in so that NO extra money can be put in earmarked for future repairs and strip away the right of the user, than to create a situation where a member has to be asked by a CL to withdraw from the fund earmarked for defense of all, and then resend it to him. Whats a member going to say? No? |
|
| Reply by: Squishy at May 25, '20 18:04 | |
| Report Post | Tip |
|
They have the option to donate money anon don't they? couldn't they withdraw that way too? |
|
| Reply by: Evening at May 25, '20 20:50 | |
| Report Post | Tips: 1 / Total: $20,000 Tip |
| Post Reply | View All Threads | Page: 1 |
Minimum $20,000
