I thought it would be a good idea at first, but I started opposing this idea because after the Nintendo Direct announcing the new Animal Crossing game (since I saw a spike in activity). I understand that those who have a lot of TBT worked hard for it, but an argument in support is if they’re not going to use their account, there’s no reason to hold onto their assets. But the whole time I had this idea, I didn’t consider the lack of new Animal Crossing game as the reason why those Bells can’t be in circulation. It would be aggravating to those who came back in wake of a new Animal Crossing game. So they will eventually use their TBT, they just can’t do it right now. I’m only more concerned about unusual cases (there’s a specific case I’m referring to, but I’m not going to talk about it here).
The reason why I thought of this idea is because I wanted to stimulate the marketplace. It was slowing down, once coveted collectibles are losing value, and the demand for collectibles isn’t as high as it used to be. But I missed the whole point of inactivity. So I don’t support this idea anymore. It’s kinda odd that I came up with this idea when I support free market economics, repealing Obamacare without any replacement, and limiting how much control the government can have on business while I oppose income taxes and welfare/government handouts. In fact, it’s contradictory.
There are a number of holes in the whole (heh) idea that add up to it being a really flaky solution. I understand you oppose the idea now but in case anybody is in favour of the idea and wants to throw in their support:
Firstly the thing is in order to make TBT you have to be an active member, whether through posting or some sort of shop. If you're taking tbt from old, inactive accounts and giving it to the poorer ones, you're likely taking from an inactive account and giving it to another, slightly less inactive account. The only exception would be if you're giving the tbt to newbies, but personally I think it'd be best to cut newbies out of the situation entirely since you don't know if they're going to be active members or not.
Another reason I'd be opposed to this is it would give TBT a more static value. The good thing about TBT now is its value is entirely up to the userbase, and it's able to gain and lose value with the flow of site activity and the release of new collectibles. If it were to be redistributed every so often, staff would have to come to a conclusion of what amount of TBT someone would have to have to be considered "poor" and what amount of TBT someone would have to have in order to be considered "rich".
There's also a number of other questions that would need to be addressed regarding the entire process:
- How long does one need to be inactive to be considered an "inactive account"?
- What happens if the inactive accounts come back?
- Would members who steadily make TBT while spending it often enough to fall in "poor" range still be considered poor? How would staff keep track of those members?
If excluding new accounts from redistribution:
- What constitutes as a newbie?
- How long does one need to be active for their newbie status to expire?
Overall while it might be in good spirits it'd be one of those situations that causes more problems than it solves.
