Politician Archive
Thread: Absolute power to the mayor!
Page 2 of 2
StasiaKriska
Fri Sep 16, 2005 12:33 pm
#14
You said:
"the problem is there no way to enforce it. Its hard to say dont put something there when the person in question has 24 HOURS to put anything they want in the city"
If you must grant zoning rights, immediately revoke them after they place thier structure. /grant one time gives them rights. Type /grant again and the rights are revoked.
Like many in this thread, myself and my militia opt to /transferstructure of new houses. In the case of "packed" houses, we /grant and then immediately revoke the privileges once the house is placed at the specified location.
Stasia
Mayor, Outcast Flats
Naboo, Kettemoor
lostswede
Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:27 am
#15
I both agree and disagree with this, i can see the posibliity to greifing, but what mayor let ppl he/she doesnt like to live in the city to begin with, we got zoning tp aid us to hand pick our citizens. The ability to remove condemed buildings would i love, but i think we can limit the power to them.
Hmm democracy or dictator ruled city, i would love to see options for both, because i can see a corrupt mayor belinging to the empire uses force to remain in the position of power, it is out of guild and rollplaying aspects. Maybe even involve the cities in the GCW there the factions can fight over the power (special forces cities) or simply fational cities under attack of NPC combatant cities.
I think this is a question that maybe very importent, the option to change how a city are ruled, some may want to have cities ruled as nazi german(german during ww2) and others may want to have it ruled in a modern democratic way, i bet some rollplaying imps wants it the corrupt and opressive way and the rebel guilds may want it democratic but who knows osme rebel guilds may want to rule it as none democratic and some imps want it democratic. So an option here maybe intressting.
Fein out
Message Edited by lostswede on 09-19-2005 04:28 AM
DaveJankins
Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:12 am
#16
lostswede wrote:
...
I think this is a question that maybe very importent, the option to change how a city are ruled, some may want to have cities ruled as nazi german(german during ww2) and others may want to have it ruled in a modern democratic way, i bet some rollplaying imps wants it the corrupt and opressive way and the rebel guilds may want it democratic but who knows osme rebel guilds may want to rule it as none democratic and some imps want it democratic. So an option here maybe intressting.
Fein out
Right now, as an outside observer of the Axis vs FIGHT war over Shadows of Alderaan on Bloodfin, I would have to say that at least some rebels would want a dictatorship. To sum it up: Axis got rights to drop houses, and started adding their own to FIGHT's city. They declared residency, and one stepped in as a new mayor. Which, like it or not, is part of being a politician. There is always a risk that someone will try to overthrow the existing govt. In an attempt to stop this, mission terminals were placed at the doors to city hall, locking several Axis members inside, and locking the rest out, so that they couldn't vote for the mayor they wanted. There is no griefing of cities themselves.. there is only griefing of other players. Losing your city is part of the game, stopping others from working on their profession, and locking people inside a building for over 20 minutes, with comments like "Look at our Axis petting zoo", isn't right.
ACSR did step in, and remove the terminals. They were then readded once that CSR went offline (his shift was over). More CSR's came, and removed the newly added ones, allowing voting again.
Because of the game mechanics though, there is really only two solutions:
1) Empty city hall of all items, redeed the shuttle/garage/bank/cloner, withdraw the 50k allowed from city hall each day up until the day of the election. Destroy city hall while it's still in FIGHT control, and provided the majority of the residents don't mind, all is good. Place a new city hall elsewhere, have everyone in FIGHT pack up their houses, and re-place them. At the next city update, will be able to place everything again. Then be more cautious about who you give militia access to.
2) Let the election go through, and work together with Axis on keeping the city together. A rebel guild and an Imperial guild keeping the city running.
The other option posted earlier in the thread of revoking someones militia access doesn't work. At least, not for 24 hours. You see, anyone that militia member gave zoning rights to, still has rights for 24h. Even if it's 100 people, they all have access, and can /transferstructure to other people. The mayor would have to go around revoking access to each person they see, and hope they get them all. Otherwise, at any time within 24hrs, more buildings can be added, etc..
I myself am a master politician, and also mayor of a city. I know the risks, as the city does not belong to me, it belongs to the citizens (ALL of the citizens, even illegal immigrants who got citizenship with a click of a button). Sure, I may have bought city hall, constructed all of the initial houses, constructed the other city buildings (shuttle, etc), but that doesn't mean it's mine. The Planetary Housing Authority (SOE) has the final decision, and it's legitimate to take over a city. Thats how you gain politician XP.
The easiest solution I see to this in the future, which many people have asked for:
Full factionally aligned cities. Now that house packup is available, simply add an optiontoonly allow residents of the same faction at the timecity hall is placed. In the case of existing cities, have the same option on the terminal, but require that the mayor is of that faction, and the majority of residents are of that faction. All other houses will simply be packed up, citizenship/militia/zoning rights to that city all revoked for those people, and thats that. If someone changes faction, they are evicted. Also have an option to turn it off, so that if the city decides to swap factions, they can. And once the majority is of the new faction (including the mayor), they can then toggle it to the opposite of what it was. Optionally, neutrals could be allowed/disallowed, and the packup would need to apply to non-housing too, including harvestors, cantinas, etc.
Unlike simply giving the mayor permission to pack up anyones house, it requires that the majority of the city is of the same faction first, and then the others are packed up. Such a switch could even take the form of a special ballot, which allows the citizens to vote on whether they wish it enabled (in the case of it being enabled on an existing city).
- Baroth
Bloodfin
ZallusNuranxis
Wed Sep 21, 2005 10:57 am
#17
Geodian wrote:This is a good idea.
So only allow the mayor to pack up houses of inactive players. That way they cant use it as a way to greif someone.
Dimear
Wed Sep 21, 2005 11:44 am
#18
Absolute power? Like beheadings? Yeah - that would be sweet. I'd be in favor of that.
And I think mayors should be able to run their town as a dictator if they want. Ok - maybe not dictator, since they could still be voted out. What's a better word? Tyrant? General oppressor? Either way - I think politicians should be able to run their city as they choose while they're in office. This means running people out of town, destroying (packing up) their houses, etc. Like "eminent domain" in the US - where the government can do anything they want to your house and land (like take it, destroy it, etc) without the owner's permission. But if the politician does this too much or badly, and is unpopular, then they get voted out.
I know this won't happen, only because it makes work for the devs. But I think it should be allowed. SOE creates the game mechanics, but they don't make us play nice. I bet that if they were starting from a blank sheet again, and they didn't have to add any work to make it happen, they'd give the mayors the power to force a pack-up of anything in town. But since it does add work now, it won't happen...
And I think mayors should be able to run their town as a dictator if they want. Ok - maybe not dictator, since they could still be voted out. What's a better word? Tyrant? General oppressor? Either way - I think politicians should be able to run their city as they choose while they're in office. This means running people out of town, destroying (packing up) their houses, etc. Like "eminent domain" in the US - where the government can do anything they want to your house and land (like take it, destroy it, etc) without the owner's permission. But if the politician does this too much or badly, and is unpopular, then they get voted out.
I know this won't happen, only because it makes work for the devs. But I think it should be allowed. SOE creates the game mechanics, but they don't make us play nice. I bet that if they were starting from a blank sheet again, and they didn't have to add any work to make it happen, they'd give the mayors the power to force a pack-up of anything in town. But since it does add work now, it won't happen...
Page 2 of 2