- Jul 2, 2018
- 3,039
This is a topic which always seems to cause controversy one way or another. Every time I try to host the Olympics it doesn't gain any traction because people either have been misled or are put off by a financial commitments. Before we had the economic system we didn't have many options in the way of determining who had a greater chance of winning an event (this was to prevent a small nation such as Saint Kitts and Nevis from being on top of the podium, there was a need to differentiate from a country like the United States). I tried doing Olympics in which the amount of athletes (and therefore your chances of winning/participating in events) incurred a greater financial cost by the more you sent. That allowed nations to essentially hedge their bets and make their own decision about how many they sent. Of course the moment you make something even cost $1 the interest plummets because everybody is obsessed with spending 100% of their money on military equipment.
Therefore I am opening it up to community consultation about how an Olympics should be run, how the gold, silver and bronze medals for each event should be determined if that's differentiated by some means or just simply everyone is on an equal playing field (same odds for every nation). Possibly a system like the F1 where people have a set number of points and allocate that to each sport to hedge their bets where they choose? What is everyones thoughts?
Therefore I am opening it up to community consultation about how an Olympics should be run, how the gold, silver and bronze medals for each event should be determined if that's differentiated by some means or just simply everyone is on an equal playing field (same odds for every nation). Possibly a system like the F1 where people have a set number of points and allocate that to each sport to hedge their bets where they choose? What is everyones thoughts?
