Politician Archive
Thread: Annoying issue with crybaby mayors
finding a good mayor is hard 
especially one have to give up precious skill points to become one.
Your thread has been Hijacked!!!!!by.. Sasheria the Interior Designer!!
I like the idea of getting EXP from people using your facilities......
There is already a tracker for merchant exp (50exp per person per hour) how about the same for politician? 1xp per person per day?
Thus you can get some exp while people use your cantina, med center, cloning center etc.. that would be so nice.. (I said per day since politician exp is low.. thus not exploitable..)
Since there is a list of citizen in the city terminal.. citizen using these facilities do not give mayor the exp.. only non citizens... (that would make thing interesting)
What about people using mission terminals in your city.. (like faction bases) a portion of the reward should go toward the city. (same goes with trainer)
Goraf wrote:
Palor wrote:
Before anyone points fingers, maybe we should know the whole story?
Was the town being taken over? Did the current mayor fund everything? What happened to make him get voted out of power?
My view on the whole situation would depend on the answers to the above questions.
In my opinion, the answers to your questions are irrelevant. Once you place a city hall, your citizens own it. You do not. Your PA does not. You are just a politician who is running things this week. Cities are meant to be taken over as part of their lifecycle. The profession is called "Politician", not "Dictator".
In this case, we are only out about 350k. Our town was very small, still an outpost, so it is not that big of a deal. This could be a very big deal if a large group of griefers decided to destroy a city every week.
Nope. If I placed a city hall with me and some friends and then some people decided they wanted it and surrounded us, I would destroy it also. Then my friends and I would move somewhere else.
That is exactly why I said it would depend on the answers to those questions.
I've been reading through these posts and have come to the conclusion that people just don't get it.
A city has taxes for a reason. They pay for existing building maintenance and for the purchase of new buildings. If someone wants to put in 2 million credits to allow their city to grow... well... good for them. Wonderful contribution. What do you expect back? Create a repayment contract and hope the mayor(s) honour it is the best you can do at the moment.
This idea of keeping taxes at 0 and having everything within the guild is NOT how cities operate. Cities are outside the guild structure. Sure, you have a guild and have the initial set of people already together to form your city, but don't expect to maintain control of the city in the long run. ITS NOT YOUR GUILD'S CITY. It is a city that was initially formed by your guild, yes. But it will grow and will incorporate other people, whether they are part of your guild or not. You could always use the ban mechanism I suppose but that's really to keep out griefers rather than dictate who you want to be part of your city.
Maybe this way of thinking is just a product of cities being new and people want to "grind" to the large cities with shuttleports etc. I think its ludicrous that a mayor would not expect competition (within or outside the guild), that a mayor would notexpectother potential mayors tohave other ideas on how the city should grow.
I'm guessing that what most people want are compounds, not cities. Maybe that's what SOE should have implemented and made the existing cities (Theed, etc) living but people not in guilds.
Baker wrote:
I've been reading through these posts and have come to the conclusion that people just don't get it.
A city has taxes for a reason. They pay for existing building maintenance and for the purchase of new buildings. If someone wants to put in 2 million credits to allow their city to grow... well... good for them. Wonderful contribution. What do you expect back? Create a repayment contract and hope the mayor(s) honour it is the best you can do at the moment.
This idea of keeping taxes at 0 and having everything within the guild is NOT how cities operate. Cities are outside the guild structure. Sure, you have a guild and have the initial set of people already together to form your city, but don't expect to maintain control of the city in the long run. ITS NOT YOUR GUILD'S CITY. It is a city that was initially formed by your guild, yes. But it will grow and will incorporate other people, whether they are part of your guild or not. You could always use the ban mechanism I suppose but that's really to keep out griefers rather than dictate who you want to be part of your city.
Maybe this way of thinking is just a product of cities being new and people want to "grind" to the large cities with shuttleports etc. I think its ludicrous that a mayor would not expect competition (within or outside the guild), that a mayor would notexpectother potential mayors tohave other ideas on how the city should grow.
I'm guessing that what most people want are compounds, not cities. Maybe that's what SOE should have implemented and made the existing cities (Theed, etc) living but people not in guilds.
Taxes cannot pay for a city at this stage, unless you jack them way way up. On a side note, that has nothing to do with this thread.
Mayors shoyuld not have the power to withdraw fromThe treasury, nor re-deed the city hall.
City Halls should be static once placed and only dissappear when the population falls below 10.
My reply was more to the fact that the people who are initially funding the city expect to own it. When they loose control of the city they take their stuff and go somewhere else.
Yes I agree that at this stage of city development, a lot of the funding is going it to growing their city as fast as possible rather than waiting til the taxes to be able to handle the expansion. So what I see missing here is some form of "contribution" mechanism whereby players can contribute significant amounts of funds and get paid back those funds from the treasury over time. The treasury would also have to maintain a certain taxation level and balance in order to be able to handle the payments as well.
The other thing that needs to change is the ability to remove public buildings. To prevent "crybaby" mayors, there needs to be some kind of vote in regards to the mayor removing public buildings. They should be able to do it whenever they want. For buildings that are destroyed when removed rather than just redeeded... they shouldn't be able to destroy it without a public vote OR you could just have all the citizens "leave" the city and let the game destroy it.
The problem with crybaby mayors is that they are the ones forking over all of the cash and expect to own things. This is not the way it should work. I do, however, agree that a formal repayment mechanism needs to be put in place to compensate those that do donate funds. The next question is... what is the cash worth of donated buildings...
Dayln wrote:
Mayors shoyuld not have the power to withdraw fromThe treasury, nor re-deed the city hall.
City Halls should be static once placed and only dissappear when the population falls below 10.
So when Player 1 donates 200k to the treasury thinking the Mayor can use it to help buy the gardens, what happens? The Mayor tells him "Oh, sorry.. you just wasted that 200k. Go ahead and /tip me another 200k so I can buy it, since I can't take from the treasury." hmm?
Just playing devils advocate there, since the only time I have ever taken any money out was 10k for a hammer the first week 
Purchasing items for the city is the least of expenses long term. Those donations should come directly. But withdrawing from the treasury invites way too much grief play.
If people were honest this would be no problem, but they are not. Not alowing Mayors to withdraw from the treasury and not allowing htem to destroy a city hall is probably the bext way to combat crybabies, or those that think they "own" a city.
I get your point and that is all fine and dandy for some, but some of us are working on building up a stronhold, like Nym's Stronghold (notice the ownership implied in the city title - odd isn't it)which is not so much a "democracy" as it is a base of operations with everything you ever need to operate from. Why can't you see that people would want to do that and have every right to if they can pull it off? Thats why we zone, build, and grow carefully, to insure our stronghold that we have built and worked foris OURS.
It's in the game because it's part of the galaxy. Look at all the stonholds, bases, compunds and more IN THE GAME from the outset. It shouldn't be a mystery that a large number of "player cities" would be devoted to this same concept.
Nym's Stronghols, Imperial Outpost, Darklighter's Compound, Emprorers Retreat, and on and on they go. Lists of in-game private cities, outposts, stronholds, whatever you want to call them, they are made with a similar concept: privately owned and operated places with some (or all) of the amenities of normalcities.
Get over it already... Some of us see this as a way to have a shuttle port, cloning, center, and mission terminals right in front of our guild hall. If we have the resources, credits, and ability to pull it off we deserve to.
Baker wrote:
My reply was more to the fact that the people who are initially funding the city expect to own it. When they loose control of the city they take their stuff and go somewhere else.
Yes I agree that at this stage of city development, a lot of the funding is going it to growing their city as fast as possible rather than waiting til the taxes to be able to handle the expansion. So what I see missing here is some form of "contribution" mechanism whereby players can contribute significant amounts of funds and get paid back those funds from the treasury over time. The treasury would also have to maintain a certain taxation level and balance in order to be able to handle the payments as well.
The other thing that needs to change is the ability to remove public buildings. To prevent "crybaby" mayors, there needs to be some kind of vote in regards to the mayor removing public buildings. They should be able to do it whenever they want. For buildings that are destroyed when removed rather than just redeeded... they shouldn't be able to destroy it without a public vote OR you could just have all the citizens "leave" the city and let the game destroy it.
The problem with crybaby mayors is that they are the ones forking over all of the cash and expect to own things. This is not the way it should work. I do, however, agree that a formal repayment mechanism needs to be put in place to compensate those that do donate funds. The next question is... what is the cash worth of donated buildings...
Although I agree, I also disagree 
A few days ago I moved our cloning center 5 or 6 times, until we had it just right. Would have hated to have to wait weeks to do that, since thats how long it would have taken if I had to wait on a vote every time.
Keep thinking of ideas though, maybe the devs will listen. Just don't blame the crybaby mayor you elected.
I agree. SOE should have implemented strongholds and not bothered with Player Cities. It would have been less headaches for them. No need for a polician class which, from what I have read but admittedly have no experience playing, appears rather... lacking. And the stronghold would be owned by the PA, allowing them to have shuttle ports, etc. No worries about "griefers" taking them over. I put griefers in quotes here cause, with Player Cities, this can happen whether the person is a griefer or not.
Would have been much simpler for them. Those not in a PA... well... would be nice if SOE opened up the existing cities for people to live in. At least they wouldn't be ghost towns and would have a purpose rather than simply a place with a cantina, med center, and star port.