Politician Archive
Thread: Solutions to the slash-and-burn soon-to-be-deposed Mayor syndrome
I've read loads of stories about this type of griefing by Mayors. Let's collect some ideas on how to prevent angry soon-to-be-deposed Mayors from destroying the City Hall.
How about this for a solution:
In order to destroy a City hall, a Politician calls for a special vote, handled just like a weekly election. The Mayor calls for the vote and all citizens are immediately sent a system e-mail explaining the situation. Everyone isset by default to agreewith the incumbent Mayor, and you have to log in and manually change your vote during the week leading up to the destruction in order to save the City Hall.
This would prevent deposed Mayors from simply griefing their citizens and pulling the whole "if I can't control the city, no one can" tantrum, and would give Mayors flexibility to move a city if they so desired as long as their citizens went along with the plan.
Any feedback on that idea? Any other possible solutions to the "slash-and-burn soon-to-be-deposed Mayor" syndrome?
I was thinking along the lines of not allowing the City Hall to be deleted as long as there are funds still in the treasury. That way the citizens could make sure to have at least a week's funds plus 50k times 7 (the amount the mayor can withdraw) to make it to the next election and vote in someone new.
The problem is flexibility. What if you really do want to move your town and want to get it done quickly?
Flexibility versus safeguards? Where should the emphasis be?
electricnomad wrote:
How about this for a solution:
In order to destroy a City hall, a Politician calls for a special vote, handled just like a weekly election. The Mayor calls for the vote and all citizens are immediately sent a system e-mail explaining the situation. Everyone isset by default to agreewith the incumbent Mayor, and you have to log in and manually change your vote during the week leading up to the destruction in order to save the City Hall.
I would actually have the default set to no. That way it truly becomes the will of the city and the mayor must have a majority of players online to vote for the disbanding of the city. As far as city funds go, as this is a special vote,I would have a "withdraw all funds" option available upon successful vote to disband the city.
Moving a city should be a last resort. It is certainly not an everyday occurance or part of urban planning like moving a garden or bank for better placement.
Overall I think this is a great solution.
I like the default to no idea.
As to safeguards vs. flexibility, after abit of consideration, I as a voting citizen feel much better about having a place holder (read second politician) put up a city hall for our town (in the new spot) and doing abit of mayoral dancing to get things transfered over as opposed to worrying about an outgoing incumbant deleteing the Hall because his/her feelings are hurt.
Basicly, there's a work around for the safeguard. Your SOL as it stands now.
Due to the multiple update bug and the money we and the CSRs put into our treasury to prevent destruction we now have almost 13 Mio in it ... so at 500k/week City Costs and 50k/day (350k/week) in funds I can extract, it would take over 15 weeks ... or 3 months ... to destroy the city if the treasury had to be empty 
I like the system of a certain percentage of the citizens having to vote for the destruction with default set to no.
I'd really like a lot more key figures citizens can vote for on a weekly basis in the city-ballot-box.
DaQuilla wrote:
Due to the multiple update bug and the money we and the CSRs put into our treasury to prevent destruction we now have almost 13 Mio in it ... so at 500k/week City Costs and 50k/day (350k/week) in funds I can extract, it would take over 15 weeks ... or 3 months ... to destroy the city if the treasury had to be empty
***DaQuilla, am I reading this correctly, does the city treasury have to be empty for the City Hall to be destroyed? Our city has a present rate of 350K or so per week for maint. How much would I have to put in to make sure the city doesnt get ripped up by the incumbant in the next 36 hours - as he is threatening to do ( see my other post ).
Because I would most certainly risk the money to prevent him from screwing the entirecity-that-is-fed-up-with him from doing so .
ThakrenTempest wrote:
DaQuilla wrote:
Due to the multiple update bug and the money we and the CSRs put into our treasury to prevent destruction we now have almost 13 Mio in it ... so at 500k/week City Costs and 50k/day (350k/week) in funds I can extract, it would take over 15 weeks ... or 3 months ... to destroy the city if the treasury had to be empty
***DaQuilla, am I reading this correctly, does the city treasury have to be empty for the City Hall to be destroyed? Our city has a present rate of 350K or so per week for maint. How much would I have to put in to make sure the city doesnt get ripped up by the incumbant in the next 36 hours - as he is threatening to do ( see my other post ).
Because I would most certainly risk the money to prevent him from screwing the entirecity-that-is-fed-up-with him from doing so .
No ... I was replying to Bajeezuses thought of only letting the city hall be destroyed with nothing in the treasury ..
At the moment you can destroy the city hall at any time ... deleting all money in the city treasury
My suggestion is this:
City Halls cannot be destroyed by a player once placed. They can only be 'abandonded' at which point the mayor who wins the next election cycle may assume ownership.
City Halls should be destroyed when maintenance funds run out or when the minimum population cap is no longer met.
Thats the best idea I have heard yet. Good idea... /knocks on SOE's forehead... anyone in there?
Seasonsin wrote:
My suggestion is this:
City Halls cannot be destroyed by a player once placed. They can only be 'abandonded' at which point the mayor who wins the next election cycle may assume ownership.
City Halls should be destroyed when maintenance funds run out or when the minimum population cap is no longer met.
Seasonsin wrote:
City Halls cannot be destroyed by a player once placed. They can only be 'abandonded' at which point the mayor who wins the next election cycle may assume ownership.
City Halls should be destroyed when maintenance funds run out or when the minimum population cap is no longer met.
This would also solve the problem of mayor resignation.
I say that it should take a majority of active players. No default votes what-so-ever. That way if the mayor is the only player that logs on in a week he has his way, if most of the town is too busy to vote since they don't really care they don't count. This way there is still the safeguard however it isn't as difficult to get. Once the city hall is destroyed all funds in the maintenance pool go to the mayor who either gets a nice kickback or redistributes the wealth.
What you people are forgetting is that city caps get in the way. If people find out a certain city is planning on destroying itself they will all know right when to drop a city hall, or it could take years for the city to destroy itself once abandoned thanks to the mayor not playing anymore and server swap citizens.
P.S. I prefer "scorched earth administrative policy"
I'd say a poll button to "You you want the Hall to be destroyed at next update" with the server destroying the Hall in case of success should do it.
You'll always have the problem of people who don't login that week, too, but politicians haven't found a way to make people vote without legal obligation in RL, so I don't think we'll pull it off online.
I agree that the Mayor having free reign to destroy the city is bad. A vote would take a week, but a city move isn't done in a day. Besides, moving your city with the current cap system is a sure way to get screwed out of advancement except on a few planets.
PsychoticChipmunk wrote:
I say that it should take a majority of active players. No default votes what-so-ever. That way if the mayor is the only player that logs on in a week he has his way, if most of the town is too busy to vote since they don't really care they don't count. This way there is still the safeguard however it isn't as difficult to get. Once the city hall is destroyed all funds in the maintenance pool go to the mayor who either gets a nice kickback or redistributes the wealth.
The more I think about it, and the more posts I read, the more I agree that the votedefault should be set to "No, don't destroy the City Hall."
Any more feedback on this idea?