Politician Archive

---

rebelforlife wrote:

I agree that the mayor may have made a blunder with his dealing of the situation, but to call him a greifer is just plain stupid.

---

Remember, it took a couple months for us to get the player city garage as well... but we did eventually get it.

---

Rorenikibi wrote:

Personally, I still call bullsh*t.

Look, we don't own these cities, but we run them. The "rules" as they are now basically bone the people who invest the time and energy up the ass with no recourse if someone wants to be a **edit** and screw with the residents or the system.

I was elected mayor, meaning the people in my city have determined that they are behind me in determining the course the city should grow in and depend on me to ensure that the city funcitons smoothly.

If some **edit** decides to make my citizens, and yes, while I am a Mayor, they are MY citizens,miserable or do anything to disrupt the smooth operation of my city by using mechanics and stupidity to bypass the local laws, then I'm going to be the biggest burr in that **edit**'s saddle that he's ever encountered.

If the Developers wanted the system set up so that people didn't "own" a city, then they should never have required that:

1) Players should need to craft them, because

2) If somebody pays for it, they will consider it theirs.

Bullsh*t we don't own our cities. The citizens who invested the time and energy to create these communities are essentially being told "go f*ck yourselves" by the Developers when it comes time to protect their investment. That's complete nonsense.

The very execution of player cities is such thatthey are possessions of the players who establish them because those players had to invest money, resources, time, and energy into making them real and then had to continue busting their ass to keep them growing.

If cities aren't just another commodity, then I as a mayor should have no power to unilaterally destroy these places. No player should have to pay a dime to establish a city. No crafter should lose a single resource to create a city hall.

In short, so long as money and resources exchange hands to create a city, they will be possessions. They are possessions which will be shared with those who become a part of the city, but make no mistake, player cities are owned and I amthe landlord. The minute I was granted zoning control, I became a goddamned landlord. The minute someone had to ask my permission to place a structure inside the city, it became mine to control. There are checks and balances on my control based on the fact that I can be booted out of office in a heartbeat for getting out of line, but when it comes to an outsider in my city, I am the f*cking Word of God as far as they are concerned, end of discussion. I refuse categorically to be rendered a f*ck doll for someone who wants to come into my city and cause trouble because the Developers lack even a memory of having common sense.

Thunderheart and the Devs need to get their heads out of their asses and realize that nobody who logs onto these servers give a rats ass what they intended do be done with the mechanics they handed to us, and they need to learn real fast that a city will do what it has to in order to defend its own interests regardless of "fair play".

I'll be a diplomat when diplomacy is called for, but I will be a size 15EEE Boondocker that gets planted in somebody's dark orifice when they step out of line.

---

Just because a person or a guild dropped city hall doesn't mean they own it. Cities are public and there is nothing you can do about it. You can't prevent the citizens electing a new mayor that was not one of the city founders. You can't make someone that gets a house in your city declare. You can't control the land outside of your city that it may grow and take. Once a structure is placed by a person you can't control anything about them or their structure. If it was a player owned item you would have control over it. We don't.

While I agree that a lot of cost and effort goes into building a city we don't own them anymore than a mayor owns the city I live in RL.

We may want more control over our cities, but the fact is that as they are currently they are public, not player owned. We as mayors are merely stewards of the city functions and only for as long as the citizens are satisfied with our performance.

Message Edited by Kiom on 05-19-2004 01:43 PM

I apologize that my earlier post may have been over the top, but the fact remains, the people who put their time and energy into building these communities need more from the Developers than a recommendation to use Vaseline to ease the pain when someone decides to screw you.

As far as I am concerned, the active citizens of a city are the owners of the town and their investment in those cities deserve adequate protection.

We had a someone move into our city who was later discovered to be a spy (a second acct), and there's nothing we can do about it. Its private, but all of his buddies have access. They hang out in his house, get buffed up, and attack. We considered doing the same thing you did before finding out that it was griefing.

We (Mayors and citizens alike) have norecourse once a structure is within our city limits. It would be nice if, in order to have a structure within a city, your residence must be declared there.

Just be thankful its a little kid and not an exploiting, abrasive, ***hole.

P.S. To all of those who posted on this that aren't understanding of this situation, it is a real challenge to maintain a city plan. There is a BIG difference between the cities that are laid out in an organized manor, and a hodge-podge place 'em where you want 'em city.

Does anyonelive in a city (in RL) where you can justbuild a house in the middle of the street? No, and if you didbuild your house in the middle of the street, the city wouldtell you to remove it, OR THEY WOULD DO IT FOR YOU. If the city was expanding, and they wanted to build a road or some other public project where you live, you have no choice but to sell them your property (unless you can get it declared a historic landmark, but thats not happenin in SWG).

So yes, cities are public places, but they operate according to rules and regulations. Why should our SWG cities be any different?

---

Wastoid wrote:

We had a someone move into our city who was later discovered to be a spy (a second acct), and there's nothing we can do about it. Its private, but all of his buddies have access. They hang out in his house, get buffed up, and attack. We considered doing the same thing you did before finding out that it was griefing.

We (Mayors and citizens alike) have norecourse once a structure is within our city limits. It would be nice if, in order to have a structure within a city, your residence must be declared there.

Just be thankful its a little kid and not an exploiting, abrasive, ***hole.

P.S. To all of those who posted on this that aren't understanding of this situation, it is a real challenge to maintain a city plan. There is a BIG difference between the cities that are laid out in an organized manor, and a hodge-podge place 'em where you want 'em city.

Does anyonelive in a city (in RL) where you can justbuild a house in the middle of the street? No, and if you didbuild your house in the middle of the street, the city wouldtell you to remove it, OR THEY WOULD DO IT FOR YOU. If the city was expanding, and they wanted to build a road or some other public project where you live, you have no choice but to sell them your property (unless you can get it declared a historic landmark, but thats not happenin in SWG).

So yes, cities are public places, but they operate according to rules and regulations. Why should our SWG cities be any different?

---

---

Kiom wrote:

---

Wastoid wrote:

We had a someone move into our city who was later discovered to be a spy (a second acct), and there's nothing we can do about it. Its private, but all of his buddies have access. They hang out in his house, get buffed up, and attack. We considered doing the same thing you did before finding out that it was griefing.

We (Mayors and citizens alike) have norecourse once a structure is within our city limits. It would be nice if, in order to have a structure within a city, your residence must be declared there.

Just be thankful its a little kid and not an exploiting, abrasive, ***hole.

P.S. To all of those who posted on this that aren't understanding of this situation, it is a real challenge to maintain a city plan. There is a BIG difference between the cities that are laid out in an organized manor, and a hodge-podge place 'em where you want 'em city.

Does anyonelive in a city (in RL) where you can justbuild a house in the middle of the street? No, and if you didbuild your house in the middle of the street, the city wouldtell you to remove it, OR THEY WOULD DO IT FOR YOU. If the city was expanding, and they wanted to build a road or some other public project where you live, you have no choice but to sell them your property (unless you can get it declared a historic landmark, but thats not happenin in SWG).

So yes, cities are public places, but they operate according to rules and regulations. Why should our SWG cities be any different?

---

As I've said on another post some where, dish turrets and mine fields are a great thing and are not griefing like blocking an entrance to a building is. Just make sure the turrets have good line of sight to aproaches to the house, not blocking it. You can load up other paths to the insurgent's house with mine fields. Just don't load up his porch with mine fields.

---

There are a few what if factors to consider.

1) Is the griefer factioned?

2) Is the griefer of an opposing faction to the greater balance of the city's residents? (Don't want to go blowing up voters. Bad thing come election time)

3) Will the minefields even work? Having been mayor of a city with five bases and dozens of minefields, I could swear like a sailor for ten pages on those useless things.

4) Is there sufficient room to drop a turret near the house? Those things have ungodly footprints as standalones. Major dedication of useable area.

---

Saabotage wrote:
Why don't you ban him and then send him an email, explaining the services the city has to offer :-P in a nice way..... Politicians SHOULD BEdiplomatic your politicians for Gods sake!

---