Politician Archive
Thread: How do you remove unwanted houses from your city?
Its unfortunately almost a necessity for any mayor to learn what their options arebecause it is our only way to deal with trouble makers that get into the city. Chances are if you have any enemies in game through the war or just rub someone the wrong way, your city will be griefed -apparently you expect the mayors of the world to turn the other cheek and take it just because the game mechanics are poor? If we had other means of dealing with these problems - like we have been asking for months, this wouldn't be an issue - but right now, we are having to make do with what we got.
AudioOrgana wrote:
Wow, that's an excellent "How To Grief with Exploits" guide.
...
I'm sorry to be so blunt, but when I hear people suggesting exploiting people out of the game like it's acceptable behavior I think everyone needs a bit of a reality check.
The misconception that I see over and over from mayors and citizens in PA-run cities is that the city somehow belongs to them. Cities are not exclusive clubs like PAs, are not owned by one character or group like a house or a faction base or a PA hall, and although the devs have given mayors the zoning restriction capability to help them keep some order to the design of the cities they administer and to have some control over who may become a citizen, there are no abilities to kick out unwanted citizens, no abilities to destroy houses that have come to be a part of the city as the city has expanded to encompass the houses, and no zoning restriction granted until the city passes its outpost stage for the express reason that cities are public spaces, not to be completely controlled by any individual or group.
That some individuals or groups have been successful in controlling cities does not mean that those who have failed to do so have been griefed by uncooperative citizens or structure builders. It means that there is some challenge and competition in this part of the game. I remember Raph Koster many times answering the concern that an unfriendly take-over of a town could occur if enemy players moved in and voted out the original mayor by saying, "I thought you wanted to play politics." Politics means having to deal with opposition, and even sometimes losing to that opposition. It doesn't mean that you have the right to block access to someone's building.
Let me make my point of view clear here. You do not have a CS complaint against a player who places a building in a city administered by you against your wishes. You would have a complaint if he blocked the entrance to your city hall or your shuttleport or something, just as he has a complaint against you if you use lightposts to block his house's entrance.
Let me make my point of view clear here. You do not have a CS complaint against a player who places a building in a city administered by you against your wishes. You would have a complaint if he blocked the entrance to your city hall or your shuttleport or something, just as he has a complaint against you if you use lightposts to block his house's entrance.
So LET him issue a ticket. Let's drag the whole issue of city griefing out in the open instead of cryptic phrases like "I thought you wanted to play politics"...
So, the mayor decides to place a lamp-post in a position that he feels is beneficial to his city. And the majority of the city's population (in this case, citizen count minus 1) feels that "hey, that's a great site for a lamp-post", so what? In POLITICS, is not the majority supposed to rule?
Does it even matter, from the description in the original post, THAT THE INTENT OF THE HOUSE OWNER IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS TO GRIEF?
If your government decided that a highway would look great going through your living room, do you actually think that your pleas would even get a hearing?
Let's talk politics here. Basically, in an IDEAL situation, the voices and rights of the many out-weigh the voices of the few. Is this not the foundation upon which the great countries of the world are built on? DEMOCRACY does not require a full quorum...simply a majority.
I admire Ralph Koster...in the fact that I believe he is the best politician here to be able to fend off all the complaints in the way that he has with simple catch phrases. So, if you want to stop mayors from using these tactics to defend their cities, why not make it such that a lamp-post cannot be built in a building footprint? Simple solution, isn't it? Instead of having CSR answer all these tickets.
To allow ONE individual to ruin the game experience of an entire city, is just plain stupid business. And first and foremost, Ralph Koster has to be a businessman. So...I doubt if the mayor who leads a city would get banned for acting on the wants of the many subscribing citizens. In smart business...better to lose the one griefer.
Defconn wrote:
So LET him issue a ticket. Let's drag the whole issue of city griefing out in the open instead of cryptic phrases like "I thought you wanted to play politics"...
So, the mayor decides to place a lamp-post in a position that he feels is beneficial to his city. And the majority of the city's population (in this case, citizen count minus 1) feels that "hey, that's a great site for a lamp-post", so what? In POLITICS, is not the majority supposed to rule?
Does it even matter, from the description in the original post, THAT THE INTENT OF THE HOUSE OWNER IN THE FIRST PLACE WAS TO GRIEF?
If your government decided that a highway would look great going through your living room, do you actually think that your pleas would even get a hearing?
Let's talk politics here. Basically, in an IDEAL situation, the voices and rights of the many out-weigh the voices of the few. Is this not the foundation upon which the great countries of the world are built on? DEMOCRACY does not require a full quorum...simply a majority.
I admire Ralph Koster...in the fact that I believe he is the best politician here to be able to fend off all the complaints in the way that he has with simple catch phrases. So, if you want to stop mayors from using these tactics to defend their cities, why not make it such that a lamp-post cannot be built in a building footprint? Simple solution, isn't it? Instead of having CSR answer all these tickets.
To allow ONE individual to ruin the game experience of an entire city, is just plain stupid business. And first and foremost, Ralph Koster has to be a businessman. So...I doubt if the mayor who leads a city would get banned for acting on the wants of the many subscribing citizens. In smart business...better to lose the one griefer.