Cities And Housing Archive
Thread: Be able to move other player structure in my city.
Page 1 of 3
Neutrinoide
Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:22 pm
#1
Hi,
I don't knowif it was ask before.
I'm a mayor and It will be great if i could move the house of my Citizens in my city. Some players log like once a month and i want to place city structure where they are.
- Maybe put a system that cost something to the mayor or city maintenance everytime that an house is move with the /movestructure command.
- It Create a clone of the house in your datapad and you double click it where you want it to be(in the city limits or not). The player don't loose his stufs whatsowever.
- It send an em-mail to the player that own the house with a wp where it is now.
- Put an option on the house terminal that allow such action from the Mayor. (Turn on/off)
- Allow a referendum whichall citizen must vote Yes or No. If 60% of them vote yes, the Mayor can move the house.
Message Edited by Neutrinoide on 07-29-2005 03:26 PM
Jergob
Fri Jul 22, 2005 6:37 pm
#2
Neutrinoide wrote:
Hi,
I don't knowif it was ask before.
I'm a mayor and It will be great if i could move the house of my Citizens in my city. Some players log like once a month and i want to place city structure where they are.
- Maybe put a system that cost something to the mayor or city maintenance everytime that an house is move with the /movestructure command.
- It Create a clone of the house in your datapad and you double click it where you want it to be(in the city limits or not). The player don't loose his stufs whatsowever.
- It send an em-mail to the player that own the house with a wp where it is now.
Message Edited by Neutrinoide on 07-22-2005 03:29 PM
LOL - try doing a search next time.
Melayne
Sat Jul 23, 2005 9:34 pm
#4
The problem you're going to run into is this.... well the one I would notice.
What if someone likes the spot they put their house down for a reason. Like a view of a lake, valley, sky or whatnot? Are you going to remove that structure and kill the whole reason they put that house there to begin with? Now with this said... if they are never going to come back to the game, then sure. But other than that, I could see some abuse happening if they let mayors do this. I'm not saying you would, but others might to :
1. Move people to take their spots for home, factories, or other structures.
2. Move for resources.
3. Move out of pure spite of a person.
4. People could pay the mayor to move a person's home for their own reasons.
The last two are really the main problems i can see right away. Again, I'm not saying you would do this, but alot of people might do this with their power. People might log into the game after going on a month or two vacation, go to where they last left their house and it might not be there. They have no idea where it is, not to mention... what if they had items in it? You can't move your own house with it full of things, how are you going to move someone elses without those items being destroyed.
Also, what if the person has a vendor? It would mess up alot of internal databases that the game runs on or uses for the bazaar points and way point systems.
What if someone likes the spot they put their house down for a reason. Like a view of a lake, valley, sky or whatnot? Are you going to remove that structure and kill the whole reason they put that house there to begin with? Now with this said... if they are never going to come back to the game, then sure. But other than that, I could see some abuse happening if they let mayors do this. I'm not saying you would, but others might to :
1. Move people to take their spots for home, factories, or other structures.
2. Move for resources.
3. Move out of pure spite of a person.
4. People could pay the mayor to move a person's home for their own reasons.
The last two are really the main problems i can see right away. Again, I'm not saying you would do this, but alot of people might do this with their power. People might log into the game after going on a month or two vacation, go to where they last left their house and it might not be there. They have no idea where it is, not to mention... what if they had items in it? You can't move your own house with it full of things, how are you going to move someone elses without those items being destroyed.
Also, what if the person has a vendor? It would mess up alot of internal databases that the game runs on or uses for the bazaar points and way point systems.
Fidgiter
Sun Jul 24, 2005 9:48 am
#5
The Mayor is elected and a Mayor that abuses his/her authority can and should be replaced with one who does. Should the majority of residents vote for a new Mayor that new Mayor could then correct the situation. The fundimental principle of Eminent Domain is where the elected government can choose to supersede the rights of an individual property owner to provide an enhancement for everyone else in the community.
Earlier an example was given related to that Naboo house on the lake.
If that structure wasn't place to make optimal use of the ground it could potentially prevent 2-5 other players from sharing a similar view. If the Mayor could move that structure the original owner could still have a good spot while other players could share in it.
Another thing may be a play the Mayor has where they want to put a garden on the lake with a shuttle port which would enhance the whole city. Yes, that one person may no longer have that nice view of the lake but instead of this every member of the community and everyone that visits that community can enjoy the view.
There are also cases where residents are willing to relocate but in doing so they'd haveto undo all their decorative efforts and have to juggle the contents of houses with their inventory and vault to make it happen. I've gone through this routine on a couple occasions and been held back from doing it in others.
I doubt it will ever happen and this is unfortunate. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and the Mayor is the elected representative of the Many. They are crippled in their ability to maintain their cities which in turn reduces the esthetic potential of cities.
Akkori
Sun Jul 24, 2005 2:54 pm
#6
We've been asking for this since the second day cities went Live. I am sure its on a list for the Devs to work on.... once they spend another 4 years with every other patch for jedi and BH exculsively... 
Melayne
Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:24 pm
#7
That's also being a dictator. If you let the person put that house there in the first place and gave him/her rights to declare residence, then you have no right to take that person's house away without their permission. This being said.... you don't know what it would do to the belongings inside the house. If they made it to where you literally just picked up the house with everything in it and moved it. Then.... sure.. the idea is fine on paper as long as you have the owner's permission to move the structure.
Eminent Domain is one of the most worthlessideas I've ever heard of... and the fact that it has been changed in the real world to what it is now... it is abusive. You kick people out of their homes that they could have been in for generations and force them to sell it for a bloody mini-mall (real life example it happened).It used to be that they could only do some types of structures like highways and they would only do it if there was no other way. Now they do it for companies like... Walmart or any other company that can buy the local government, Hell they could put a mailbox there if they thought it would help the community.The fact that the localgovernment decides what is best for the community and not the other way around is down right communistic.
That is exactly the kind of abuse that *could* happen in game.
Most towns don't have more than one person running to be mayor in the game. I've never actually seen one where there were more than one person running. You can't just pick up a person's home without their permission and move it. No... they don't want to share the view. Yes, it is selfish, but they worked hard to afford that house, maintain it, decorate it, and they deserve theview that they workedfor.That is no reason to move them just so theyare forcedto share what they have. That is the same idea communist Russia had. As you can see... it didn't work. I realize the fall of Communist Russia wasn't sole based off of people forced to give what they earned to people who were too lazy to earn it themselves, but you get my point
Now, if the mayor had some sort of contract with stipulations, then yeah... move it to your heart's content, because they signed a contract saying the mayor can do what he wants.
Take out the politics involved in this issue and do it pure database problems that will insueensueI don't think they will be doing this anytime soon. It would be nice for Mayors to make a GM ticket of some sort to have some properties removed if they are flamming up a flaming to see if the owner is inactive for X amount of time.
Melayne
Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:28 pm
#8
*anyone know how to edit posts?*
....database problems that will insueensueI don't think....
Should be:
....database problems that will ensue, I don't think...
Fidgiter
Sun Jul 24, 2005 3:56 pm
#9
Melayne wrote:
That's also being a dictator... That is the same idea communist Russia had... force them to sell it for a bloody mini-mall
Faciest, Communist AND Capitalist? Well, if Mayors could deny residents the right to vote or send disidents to a Gulog in Siberia then maybe you'd have a point for the former two. The fact of the matter is Mayors are elected officials and every single resident has a right to run for office or vote.
you don't know what it would do to the belongings inside the house. If they made it to where you literally just picked up the house with everything in it and moved it.
An obvious requirement would involve having all the items of the structure moved with it and remaining in the same arrangement as existed before being relocated. As I understand CSR already have a utility that lets them do this.
Most towns don't have more than one person running to be mayor in the game.
The reason is simple: There is nothing at stake. Once the structures are placed and the specialization defined there's nothing else the Mayor can do. If there was actually something at stake elections would be far more involved.
You can't just pick up a person's home without their permission and move it.
For a Mayor to move a structure it would need to meet one of three criteria. The Mayor must be the owner or on the administrator list, the structure is condemned or the owner has not logged on for 4 weeks.
Take out the politics involved in this issue
A democratically elected Mayor runs a city. Not a Dictator and not a Communist. You are the one trying to make this political but ultimately I find it ironic that you want to take Politics out of a Politician.
bluejanus
Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:32 pm
#10
Fidgiter wrote:
The Mayor is elected and a Mayor that abuses his/her authority can and should be replaced with one who does. Should the majority of residents vote for a new Mayor that new Mayor could then correct the situation. The fundimental principle of Eminent Domain is where the elected government can choose to supersede the rights of an individual property owner to provide an enhancement for everyone else in the community.Earlier an example was given related to that Naboo house on the lake.
If that structure wasn't place to make optimal use of the ground it could potentially prevent 2-5 other players from sharing a similar view. If the Mayor could move that structure the original owner could still have a good spot while other players could share in it.
Another thing may be a play the Mayor has where they want to put a garden on the lake with a shuttle port which would enhance the whole city. Yes, that one person may no longer have that nice view of the lake but instead of this every member of the community and everyone that visits that community can enjoy the view.
There are also cases where residents are willing to relocate but in doing so they'd haveto undo all their decorative efforts and have to juggle the contents of houses with their inventory and vault to make it happen. I've gone through this routine on a couple occasions and been held back from doing it in others.
I doubt it will ever happen and this is unfortunate. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and the Mayor is the elected representative of the Many. They are crippled in their ability to maintain their cities which in turn reduces the esthetic potential of cities.
It would be foolish of the Devs to implement something that could easily be abused. Since they control how things work, no the needs of the many do not outweigh the needs of the few. Btw why do you as a mayor spout about political tools and political ideas, but tell someone else to keep politics out of the discussion? Eminent domain does not exist in-game. It exists in real-life, in real-life politics. Don't expect to pick and choose what politics you feel should go in this thread and not get called out by others who disagree.
Message Edited by bluejanus on 07-24-2005 04:35 PM
Fidgiter
Sun Jul 24, 2005 4:43 pm
#11
He is the one who said not to talk about politics. In real life a structure that is left vacant and unpaid for is condemned and bulldozed without anyone missing a step.
bluejanus wrote:
Btw why do you as a mayor spout about political tools and political ideas, but tell someone else to keep politics out of the discussion? Eminent domain does not exist in-game. It exists in real-life, in real-life politics. Don't expect to pick and choose what politics you feel should go in this thread and not get called out by others who disagree.
Melayne
Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:14 am
#12
Ok let's take this bit by bit... *grin*
Melayne wrote:
That's also being a dictator... That is the same idea communist Russia had... force them to sell it for a bloody mini-mall
Faciest, Communist AND Capitalist? Well, if Mayors could deny residents the right to vote or send disidents to a Gulog in Siberia then maybe you'd have a point for the former two. The fact of the matter is Mayors are elected officials and every single resident has a right to run for office or vote.
You're twisting my words around in areas that are on different topics, sir. The Russia example and mini mall examples were two different things that you managed to twist into a big mess.I'm not saying they have to deny the citizens to vote, not many people actually vote in this game anyway, it's just another junk piece of mail they get. I never said they didn't have a right to run or vote, don't add words that aren't there. My points are valid, you are just taking this way too personal please don't.
As for the Mayors being elected. Again, as someone else pointed out in many other posts, as well as this oneI believe. The mayor supports the city,outpost, town, etc when it comes to money. That is why you see so many towns in the game. No one wants to have a real election so they go start their own town to have full control. It's a great luxury that the game has as well as a great mishap. There really isn't any competition when it comes to Mayors running for office. *some servers might be different this is just what I've noticed and read*
you don't know what it would do to the belongings inside the house. If they made it to where you literally just picked up the house with everything in it and moved it.
An obvious requirement would involve having all the items of the structure moved with it and remaining in the same arrangement as existed before being relocated. As I understand CSR already have a utility that lets them do this.
If they do, then great, that would help with the whole losing items issue. I don't see them implementing this even with this tool.
Most towns don't have more than one person running to be mayor in the game.
The reason is simple: There is nothing at stake. Once the structures are placed and the specialization defined there's nothing else the Mayor can do. If there was actually something at stake elections would be far more involved.
I agree with you. Maybe that's an issue that will be addressed and more duties will be added so the Mayor can feel a little more involved with his/her establishment, so that competition can thrive, but as my point a few paragraphs above shows this will most likely not be the only reason why no one else runs for Mayor in most towns.
You can't just pick up a person's home without their permission and move it.
For a Mayor to move a structure it would need to meet one of three criteria. The Mayor must be the owner or on the administrator list, the structure is condemned or the owner has not logged on for 4 weeks.
All but the last term would be good for the "contract". Four weeks isn't enough time to assume the person is gone for good. Four months maybe, but them people bounce from game to game so much now a days you just never know. Those details would have to be dicussed alot more. They could have it where the Mayor makes the players sign a contract and the Mayor of that town makes up the rules for such an action to take place. People wouldn't be able to call it abuse because both parties agreed.
Take out the politics involved in this issue
A democratically elected Mayor runs a city. Not a Dictator and not a Communist. You are the one trying to make this political but ultimately I find it ironic that you want to take Politics out of a Politician.
Refer back to my many points on how many people run for mayor of other people's towns to see it would, in most cases, be a dictatorship or a communist like state, not communism, don't mix up the two. No, I was never trying to make this a political ideals battle. My views are on how people would use typical real world politics to abuse an in game world. It was not attacking the politics itself. You said it yourself, there are no politics in this game, just someone who goes to the trainer and hits the train button so they can make their own town, not alot of politics go into that.
Not all elections are "democratic"... some elections are forced and fear presides over who enters the elections and who wins, this has nothing to do with any in game things, but it is just to prove that not all elected officals were truely elected. Case in point... Saddam ... he lead and was re- elected out of fear. An older example, Hitler.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, please don't take this personal. Yes, this is very colorful... ^_^
Melayne
Mon Jul 25, 2005 3:34 am
#13
Since I still can't find a way to edit this.. maybe it's just not in my view because it's 6:23am where I am and I haven't slept yet, but eh.. I'll wing it.
It's "she" for one... *wink*
Number two is that unfortunatly they do not have real world solutions because it would be very hard to keep a player base that moves from game to game and comes back after 6 months. How would you like it if you took a break from a game for a little while to come back and have everything you worked for gone because someone erased it? It just wouldn't work. Sony would lose people fast.
I don't like people leaving their smoking condemed harvesters in the valley next to my house, it makes a terrible noise and causes my allergies to flare up. *bad attempt at humor*
Would I like to get rid of them? Oh God yes. Can I? No.... should the bloody things be able to go boom after say.... two months of being condemned? Maybe they'll do something like that.
Natural decay would be a good way to cure the situation without taking immersion out or adding political folly to the mix. I'll beit.. quick natural decay... but eh can't wait years can we!!
Page 1 of 3