currently theres very few ways for nations to control on who should or should not get money from treasury, unless they want to have constant votings for payments. i would like to see the stipends law include minimum required influence for each rank. if persons influence is below that minimum at reset time, they would not get paid that day.

I like it and I agree it should be part of the law or add option that EotC doesn't get stipends

I like it - I like additional parameters besides simply rank.

+1

+1
The mechanism could do with an update, and thise would definitely be a good addition

-1

A nation has control if they want to pay stipends or not. Look at Tokelau. Why have they chosen to not pay stipends? They have their own internal system of payouts. If you are worried about your stipend law, just take it away and adopt a system like Tokelau.

My only opinion on this is an addition to the law that could be voted in.

** 5%-25% of a nations stipend, when paid out will be added automatically to the players influence. Like all laws, this will be voted on by parliament. Like the plantation acre increase, the nation will decided the percentage of cut goes to influence. If this law is in effect, each nations player will need to pick which port(s) the automatic influence goes to. **

Shadowood wrote:-1

A nation has control if they want to pay stipends or not. Look at Tokelau. Why have they chosen to not pay stipends? They have their own internal system of payouts. If you are worried about your stipend law, just take it away and adopt a system like Tokelau.

My only opinion on this is an addition to the law that could be voted in.

** 5%-25% of a nations stipend, when paid out will be added automatically to the players influence. Like all laws, this will be voted on by parliament. Like the plantation acre increase, the nation will decided the percentage of cut goes to influence. If this law is in effect, each nations player will need to pick which port(s) the automatic influence goes to. **

Why I agree with this change of law is simply because there is no way to get rid of player whom sits on the position and logs in 1 every 7 days.

That's why I added part that EotC shouldn't be able to recieve stipends. That way rightful king and nation gets more control but doesn't eliminate option to mess withbit if you desire

I agree on the eotc part. I actually think that should be automatic. Why would you pay eotc.

Otherswise the ability to pick and choose who gets stipend by who you like or how much influence they hold is a bit to much control in my opinion and potentially hard on newer players.

If you are not happy with your low activity player
Or a player that takes funds and give nothing in return mark them eotc.

By this you are openly declaring them not part of the nation

Shadowood wrote:-1

A nation has control if they want to pay stipends or not. Look at Tokelau. Why have they chosen to not pay stipends? They have their own internal system of payouts. If you are worried about your stipend law, just take it away and adopt a system like Tokelau.

My only opinion on this is an addition to the law that could be voted in.

** 5%-25% of a nations stipend, when paid out will be added automatically to the players influence. Like all laws, this will be voted on by parliament. Like the plantation acre increase, the nation will decided the percentage of cut goes to influence. If this law is in effect, each nations player will need to pick which port(s) the automatic influence goes to. **

+1 to Shadow

-1 to OP for same reasons. If it is an issue then eliminate the stipend and put in guidelines for payouts.

reason i would like ways to control money flow via laws is to avoid having to monitor/vote for dozens of payments weekly. i do very much like shadows idea of partial payments going straight to influence. but i feel there should be a way to avoid money going to some who do not contribute to nation. unlike eoc, that is set by king alone, influence requirement would be optional addition to existing law, that need to be voted for.

either addition, or both, would be great on my opinion.

Cutpurse wrote:reason i would like ways to control money flow via laws is to avoid having to monitor/vote for dozens of payments weekly. i do very much like shadows idea of partial payments going straight to influence. but i feel there should be a way to avoid money going to some who do not contribute to nation. unlike eoc, that is set by king alone, influence requirement would be optional addition to existing law, that need to be voted for.

either addition, or both, would be great on my opinion.

This is a reason to implement Letter of Marque. It has already been approved, but could be adjusted to address this issue.