Politician Archive

Sorry, I don't agree with this at all.

You are asking that another player who has had no association with a city, be penalised because a city has grown and now encompasses their house.

Blaming someone who's house has been there well before a city existed, and wanting to see game mechanics changed so that your city may essentially grief that player into moving is something that I find distinctly unpalatable.

I agree with Mayors being able to find out the IGN of the house owner for residences in their city. This would allow them to ascertain a players intentions, but at the end of the day, if a player doesn't wish to move, there is little a mayor can do about it.

Message Edited by StumanKadir on 11-22-2004 09:46 AM

---

StumanKadir wrote:
Sorry, I don't agree with this at all.

You are asking that another player who has had no association with a city, be penalised because a city has grown and now encompasses their house.

Blaming someone who's house has been there well before a city existed, and wanting to see game mechanics changed so that your city may essentially grief that player into moving is something that I find distinctly unpalatable.

---

fine make it first come first owner, i mean sorry if you screw up and plant a house 300 meters from city hall because you want to suck off the benifits of being near a city without joining it you know dam well ahead of time theres a chance that the city can and will expand around your house. by the same token if i plant my city hall 2 doors down from where your already at i knew you where already there and should have planned according to deal with your house. besides ive already found unless the account is dead inactive setting the propperty tax to maximum will get any offensive structure that i want moved removed within 2 days and leaving zoning on will stop anything new from going in without you knowing about it, Amazing how fast people will move when it finds it cost them money out of there pocket

If you did that to me and it resulted in my house getting removed, I would complain to the CSRs that I was being harrassed in game and would ask for your account to be suspended and for myself to be compensated.

What you are suggesting is griefing of the highest order. Sorry, but actions like that are considered a form of harrassment by SOE.

There are many people calling for Player Cities to be removed from the game, and its griefing attitudes such as yours that only make the calls louder and louder. Do NOT assume that someone drops a house just to siphon from your city, most players from my experience could not care less that you plan on growing your city, and would much rather your city just pack up and die.

You are not the only one to play this game, your city is not the be all and end all, and from my experience, the individual player will win out over a predatory player city such as yours every time.

---

StumanKadir wrote:
If you did that to me and it resulted in my house getting removed, I would complain to the CSRs that I was being harrassed in game and would ask for your account to be suspended and for myself to be compensated.

What you are suggesting is griefing of the highest order. Sorry, but actions like that are considered a form of harrassment by SOE.

There are many people calling for Player Cities to be removed from the game, and its griefing attitudes such as yours that only make the calls louder and louder. Do NOT assume that someone drops a house just to siphon from your city, most players from my experience could not care less that you plan on growing your city, and would much rather your city just pack up and die.

You are not the only one to play this game, your city is not the be all and end all, and from my experience, the individual player will win out over a predatory player city such as yours every time.

---

easy now, no reason to get really upset about this...this is just discussion and several of us have pointed out the problems involved with the idea. I don't agree with it either because I understand griefing and such, but it can also be reversed, when our old mayor was leaving...we had a rogue house placed for griefing purposes right in the middle of our town square. I know both sides of this issue and I do think that something needs to be done, preferably allowing mayors to know the owner of ALL structures in the city radius. Not outside the radius, but only within. That way only houses that directly affect the city are affected by this (nothing happens to them...just thats the only way to say it .)

Mayor JoseCuervo - Kashyyykur, Rori - Corbantis
-AoWL - Army of Wookie Liberation

Message Edited by bdwsrkob on 11-22-2004 08:19 AM

guess ill have to assume hes talking about using taxes not about voting a derelic house br redeeded like eminent domain work

---

StumanKadir wrote:
If you did that to me if i did what? run you out with high taxes?and it resulted in my house getting removed that only happens if your stupid enough to let it burn down, I would complain to the CSRs good luck that I was being harrassed in game and would ask for your account to be suspended and for myself to be compensated. yea and the CSR's would tell you deal with it until the next election then vote me out

What you are suggesting is griefing of the highest order. Sorry, but actions like that are considered a form of harrassment by SOE. Nope, im suggesting using taxes to fill the city treasury, its still YOUR choice to stay and pay, or go and keep your credits. Are you REALLY niave enough to think the CSR's have either the time or manpower to deal with every citizen that wants to cry when the mayor does something they dont like ie change trainers hire/fire militia, city specialties ect ect

There are many people calling for Player Cities to be removed from the game not on bria, we cry about no build areas and planet caps , and its griefing attitudes such as yours that only make the calls louder and loudernot on bria they dont. Do NOT assume that someone drops a house just to siphon from your city, naw personally i only asume that when i see a former citizen pop a mechant tent on the city limits on a dead straight path from town to the mine outpost, most players from my experience could not care less that you plan on growing your city, and would much rather your city just pack up and die. Funny, most players i know LIKE having trainers on demand for their grind, 15% or whateven extra cash from job markets, and having a place to get doc/entertainer buff without the spamathon babble in the starports

You are not the only one to play this game, your city is not the be all and end all, and from my experience appearently limited, the individual player will win out over a predatory player city such as yours every time. well from MY experience people dont stay were they aint welcome, some just need a better hint then others

---

Btw mateyou can unsaddle your high horse or dingo or whatever it is down there and park it for the day. Sweet Water has 120 declared in it now, theres been only 1 mayor, and there has never been a vote cast for anyone else guess im doing something right ive got 18 mil in the treasury, and even with a recent slash in garage fees the town still makes enough money a week im almost embarressed. Did i forget, out of the 18 million ZERO is the amount of cu from taxes this this week month year or alltime, NEVER had a tax in Sweet Water NEVER will.

Like that one apple everywhere ve had to deal with an idiot that was to stupid to ask me first about how town was before telling me all the things i could or couldnt make him when we expanded. he got my responseof 3 options, pack and go, sit and deal with it, declare residence and TRY and run against me for mayor. the OTHER residents we annexed by expansion got my normal welcome and call me anytime you need trainers decorations ect letter,

im hardly predatory,altho i see no problem whatsoever in saying ill drop what im doing and help a town DECLARED resident with trainer changes or decorations within a few minutes. Outsider requests are normally done at MY convenience when ive finished everything else for the day IF i still rememebr it. its one of the few incentives availible to reward declare residents.

As for taxes ive found its the easiest way to get hold of a structure owner if you dont know who it is. the times i had to deal with offending structure from zoning being bugged or whatever i got responses back in 24 hours or less when they saw what the taxes were set to. Sure beat sitting out all day 24/7 waiting for some player to finally come up to it so i could ask is it yours?

---

DrakeBrimstone wrote:

Idea 1

If a building is voted to be removed then it imediatly becomes condemed, no maintence can be put on the house at this point, however no maintence is used on it either. The owner may destroy the structure, getting the deed back with the current maintence balance left on the deed as surplus, the normal destruction fee is ducted from the city hall. (Funds are set aside when the /removestructure command is issued and refunded if the vote is removed by the mayor or if the vote favors keeping the house. If the owner of he house elects to redeed the house before the vote competes the funds still go to pay for the destruction of the house and the deed keeps it's full surplus) If the owner does not remove the house themselves it is destroyed automaticly, with everything in it, one week aloted after the vote.

Idea 2

If a building is voted to be removed the house is automaticly redeeded (see above in reguards to surplus maintence) into a special version of the deed. The deed is then placed in the owners bank vault (reguardless of weather the bank vault is at it's limit) All the contents of the house are stored inside the deed and can only be retrieved by placing the house again and using the retrieve item command from the structure terminal.

Idea's, Comments, Concerns are all welcome

Drake Brimstone

---

I like the idea but not in this form, The idea about having it redeeded in a special form and "saves" the items in the house as they are. Instead of putting the item in the bank add it to there inventory, reguardless of item count. However before the /removestructure command can be used to vote to have it removed. The player will recieve a popup box stating "The city of XXX requests that you remove your house from the city limits, Yes = Redeed and recieve Destroy cost X 10, No = After the current cycle the citizens may vote to remove your house.

If the player choices No then during the next election cycle, during the first week which also cannot be the current week of the first request. The mayor may began the vote of removal, also the resident will be able to use the city hall terminal to write a letter to ask citizens not to remove his house. A copy of the message is sent to customer service, if the mayor or any other citizens find foul language then a CS agent can call up this letter to check, however if there is no abuse then the message is deleted after X months.

Only two removal vote can be used at a time, up to 5 requests can be sent also for the requests to remove can be resent only once after 48 hours, this allows the mayor to contact the person again and ask. The people eligable to be voted on are the ones that rejected the request twice in the previous cycle.

Credit Costs
Request = Yes
City to system: Destroy cost X 10 + 10,000 per lot
City to Player: Destroy cost X 10 + (x) + 10,000 per lot
(x) = treasury amount the mayor used to "Bribe" the player to leave (x) = 0 by default
Request = No
City to System: Destroy cost X 10 + 10,000 per lot
City to Player: 10,000cr per lot

Small Naboo (2 lot) [Larry's House of Hair]
Request = Yes
CtoS: 2500 X 10 + 20,000 = 45,000cr to system
CtoP: 25000cr + [10,000] + 20000 = 55,000cr to player
total cost: 100,000cr to remove the player, i find this amount fair and abuse discriminating.
Request = No
CtoS: 45,000cr to system
CtoP: 0cr to player (should have taken the request)

---

STUMAN ANIKADIR Wrote:::

Sorry, I don't agree with this at all.

You are asking that another player who has had no association with a city, be penalised because a city has grown and now encompasses their house.

Blaming someone who's house has been there well before a city existed, and wanting to see game mechanics changed so that your city may essentially grief that player into moving is something that I find distinctly unpalatable.

I agree with Mayors being able to find out the IGN of the house owner for residences in their city. This would allow them to ascertain a players intentions, but at the end of the day, if a player doesn't wish to move, there is little a mayor can do about it.

---

Well we were not first to america, there were natives living here. So removing people from there soil is not a rare thing. Cities take land from people for a price and there is nothing they can do about it except argue that there land is worth more. Look at SoCal land is taken "condemed" to make freeways. This is not a old idea, i like it but it needs to be fine tuned to remove the grief ability or make it so the one that foots the biggest cost is the city.

I doubt this system will ever come to SWG but you never know.

Must admit that I have never had a problem myself with houses being camped on the out-skirts of town. Have never really seen it as an issue in the 12 months my city has been in existance. We have the city laid out fine, with all the decorations placed after the citizens did a bit of moving at my request.

I have never charged taxes on anything other than the bugged shuttleport, and doubt that I ever will. We rely purely on donations from the citizenry and currently have a treasury of 43m credits .

I'm still of the opinion that what you are proposing is nothing better than a grief against other players so that you can get your way.

---

StumanKadir wrote:
Must admit that I have never had a problem myself with houses being camped on the out-skirts of town. Have never really seen it as an issue in the 12 months my city has been in existance. We have the city laid out fine, with all the decorations placed after the citizens did a bit of moving at my request.

I have never charged taxes on anything other than the bugged shuttleport, and doubt that I ever will. We rely purely on donations from the citizenry and currently have a treasury of 43m credits .

I'm still of the opinion that what you are proposing is nothing better than a grief against other players so that you can get your way.

---

ok lets play what if. im going to assume you planned your talus town on some nice sweet flatland there so you could fit everything in the town how you wanted it. Now i also harv resources on bria and i happen to use talus for the exact same reason, high chance of putting 20-30 harves down in one flat area instead of having to use 2-3 different spawn points. now continueing this what if discussion, what if im surveying and my spawn wp just happens to be smack in the middle of your town were you set a nice open park up, or you left enough open space for me to drop even 15 harvs scattered throughout your city limits. Thats your what if, now you choose. do you grant me zoning to let me plant my harvs or not?gonna letme add a fist full of BER 13 decorations to your nicely planned town?i think we both know the answer to that one dont we especially since once a harv is down there is NO way to force its owner tp remove itis there?

By your logic even using zoning rights could be called griefing people by not letting them plant whatever they want whereever they want just because its in YOUR city boundaries. And if you didnt let anyone come in and pave resource spawns at will wouldnt you be griefing them by denying them the resources in the maximum quantity they could harvest becuase its YOUR city.

just food for thought, as for me as mayor i tell anyone that even mentions dropping harvs in sweet water chances are better of seeing pink wookies flapping their arms and flying before any militia would grant zoning for a harv field, and that goes for my own harvs also

It's a question that comes up from time to time (I'm a miner myself), and the answer is always a flat out no. Even if the most uber of uber resources spawns at 99% right in the most open part of the city (which has happened on a few occasions), the answer is still no - and that even applies to myself.

To myself as a longstanding Mayor, it's a good method of alienating residents - something that a city on Talus is generally loath to do (we don't have the luxury of endless streams of players soloing around our city and actually have to work to make our city viable).

We do have an industrial area to the west of the city that has been the site of some very nice spawns, and because it's out of the way of the centre of the city (but part of it is still within the city zone), we have allowed limited harvs to be dropped when circumstances have permitted. These are restricted to residents only, so even in those cases we know who it is that did the dropping. I have a group in the militia who I trust with the zoning powers. It's never been abused to date and I can't see any reason for it be abused in the future.

Most miners would be loath to waste not only a lot, but an entire harvestor just to annoy a city (though going by your attitudes I could understand why someone might want to do it to you ).

As regards the rest of the city, the areas in the immediate surrounds of the city aren't suitable for dropping harvs (with the exception of the industrial area), so its a problem I doubt we will be facing (and you can put that down to some excellent town planning that the original city planners divised before the city took shape).

I do not consider the city to be "my city" and I find it strange that you should add this sort of inference into your spurious hyperthetical. Maybe its you projecting your mindset onto me, only you can answer that I guess. You do however have a very strange view of what constitutes a grief or not, though I guess skewing reality to try and make it fit your reasoning shows the lack of support for your basic argument. To me, a grief is actively doing damage to a player to satisfy your own needs. How not allowing them to place a harvestor in a city zone rates in that category is I guess a bit of hick logic on your part. By your logic then, SOE are griefing players by instituting no-build zones around NPC cities as well?

My view still stands, you wish to grief fellow players who have a house in the path of your cities expansion or who won't play ball with your decorations or city design. Nothing you have said so far has altered my view on this matter.