Politician Archive
Thread: To Everyone that is planning to take over someone elses City
I agree with Surius and Chibi-Bar and Dayln. Player cities are NOT private, they are not an expansion of player associations, but they belong to everyone who wants to be a part of the big community.
The only thing I don't like about the "city takeover" is that ability for the new mayor to destroy the city hall. I don't think this type of politics was designed into the system, and must be fixed ASAP. Surius had a good idea that the mayor must have been voted in by at least 75% in order to be able to destroy the city hall (and thus the city). Or maybe even have it as a second item to vote on during the election. That way a politician can't have a secret agenda while campaigning and spring it onto the citizens after moving in. In any case, there must be a hot-fix very soon to counter this unbalance. I would call it an exploit, because it is way too easy for a one person to destroy an entire city with just the help of his/her P.A. members.
So just piss on those people who want cities to be an extension of their PA? My PA spent a lot of money and worked very hard to gather the resources to make the city hall deeds we possess. Those deeds belong to my PA. The city hall constructed with that deed belongs to my PA no matter what anyone else thinks. We envision our city as a company town, where citizenshipis by membership in the PA, or by invitation. We have a good set-up, and I would hate to see people just move in and screw it up.
That doesn't mean that we wouldn't like to have non PA members as citizens. Quite the opposite. We will need them to expand, but I think there should be a certain etiquette to joining a city...one should ask permission before plopping a house down.
Well.. our city IS private regardless of what anyone says here, even if my definition of private may be different.
We are 2 PA's plus some independant people who just turned up made friends and we let join. We dont let any l33t d00d just place a house, but at the same time we do have a semi-open door to whoever wants to join provided they arnt complete dorks, act civilized and want to be a part of a mature non-pvp community.
Yes someone could try a hostile takeover on us. yet i think the size of our city even outside the current city radius may deter most. Especially with how easy it would be to just expand step by step put taxes super high and milita on constant alert to attack them if they try to add maintenance to the house (a 7km run every time they die). Until their house decays. once we got rid of them we'd allow the city to expand next step etc and repeat. may slow us down but we'd still keep our city.
Well here are my comments as a mayor of a city....
First, I went out and bought a city hall and placed it on a planet that i liked and a spot for growth. Once placed I then went about finding ppl who were interested in settling a new city. I did this without regard to Faction or guild affliliation. That was 1 week ago. We now have 31 ppl moved in and growing everyday. I allow anyone wanting to join the city to join. I feel everyone brings something. I won the last election with all votes to me. No else ran against me..And yes, we have another politician in the city besides me. Now, our city has grown to 200m. If someone wants to move in fine. BUT; This is the problem that I have. All citizens are free to run and free to remove me from office if they feel im not doing a good job...but you people that keep talking about oh well if your radius grows and encompasses more ppl then thats fair if they vote you out. Hmmm. Interesting concept here. You see we want a TRUE FREE City. No Guild Owned City. No Faction Owned City. Just citizens working for the betterment of our city. So, if a 80 person guild decided that since they didnt get a city in under the cap and still want one and plop 80 ppl in a circle around that 150m or 200m range so as to TAKEOVER a city and then by default get majority of the city and then DICTATE who is mayor to the 31 ppl that where the citzens of the once free city. How is this not different then making a Private City. Becuase the only thing that guild is looking for is OWNERSHIP of a city and not PART of a city. So, basically what happens is this: Hypathetical....We build a city free and open to anyone...Guild A doesnt have city but want a city for thier guild. They Move in as close to border as possible...Then BAM take it over, make it A GUILD CITY where THEY now control WHO is Mayor and who is NOT...Hmmm that seems like a dictatorship as well to me.
So yes, I agree no one owns a city. I certainly dont..my citizens own it. But neither should someone come in and TAKE a city from the FREE citizens of that city. If you want to join and then vote the mayor out becuase he is not leading well then DO IT. But dont vote him out to put your people in. Thats is the catch 22 here folks. We dont own it. But neither should a guild own it.
well, our guild has a city and it truly is "our city"
however, I challenge you to find it and place a house in it..
Hostle take overs arn't encuraged by the devs. Running for mayor in a town is. But putting as many citizens in a town and having them all vote for you IS an exploit. It's not democracy if you rig the election. Anyone who is saying that this sort of behavior is part of the game and is intended is skewing the truth in thier own favor. If you move into a town and run for mayor, Democracy; If you move your whole PA into a town tell them all who to vote for and run for mayor, Dictatorship, despits have used a tactic very simaler to this for ages to get more land. So don't BS us and tell us that you had moving your PA into a city to help demoracy.
Your PA won't vote against you because you'll be doing everything for them, everyone else could vote against you all they want but that won't help them much now would it. It would be like the general of an army walking into a small country that has less citizens then his army and running for president, of course he's going to win, he controls the majority of the population, would anyone call that democracy.
First off, let me say, "Player cities are not owned" is not a plea for people to act a certain way. It is a declaration of how things presently are. It comes in response to those people unhappy with how the rules currently are, and is an attempt to explain why things are the way they are.
Neowulf2014 No Guild Owned City. No Faction Owned City. Just citizens working for the betterment of our city.
... You are not preventing a guild owned city or faction owned city. No one *CAN* own a city. No matter what they do short of using the locked doors bug to exploit thier way to privacy. So all the dicussion that follows that are justified by the idea of preventing guilds from owning your city are moot.
Neowulf2014So, if a 80 person guild (group)decided that since they didnt get a city in under the cap and still want (to be a part of) one and plop 80 ppl in a circle around that 150m or 200m range so as to TAKEOVER (JOIN) a city and then by default (being the majority) get majority of the city and then DICTATE (VOTE) who is mayor to the 31 ppl (entire city) that where the citzens of the once (still)free city. How is this not different then making a Private (Public) City. Becuase the only thing that guild is looking for is OWNERSHIP (no one *can* own a city, so your fears are unfounded)of a city and not PART (but they WILL be a part of it, it is just thatyou will ONLY be a part of it instead of controlling it, that bothers you)of a city. So, basically what happens is this: Hypathetical....We build a city free and open to anyone...Guild A doesnt have city but want a city for thier guild. They Move in as close to border as possible...Then BAM take it over, make it A GUILD CITY (it is impossible to "make it a guild city")where THEY (MAJORITY)now control WHO (ELECTED OFFICIAL)is Mayor and who is NOT...Hmmm that seems like a dictatorship as well to me. (Seems like a democracy to me)
So yes, I agree no one owns a city. I certainly dont..my citizens own it (No they don't. You just said no one owns a city). But neither should someone come in and TAKE (JOIN) a city from the FREE (PREVIOUS)citizens of that city. If you want to join and then vote the mayor out becuase he is not leading well then DO IT (citizens are entirely allowed to vote for ANY reason. Including PA membership). But dont vote him out to put your people in (Why not? Members of political parties do it all the time. I know many people who vote for all the Republican candidates or Democratic candidates. I agree they shouldnt, but I know there is no reason they cant). Thats is the catch 22 here folks. We dont own it. But neither should a guild own it. (No you dont own it, and neither does any one else. The catch 22 is that you wanna pay lip service to not owning your city, but you still wanna control how it is run. Oh you dont have to be Mayor, but it still has to be run a certain way decided by you).
**
Lester - Hostle take overs arn't encuraged by the devs. Running for mayor in a town is. But putting as many citizens in a town and having them all vote for you IS an exploit. (No its not. An exploit is using a bug to gain benefit.Whats the bug? That you dont get to controlwho moves into your city? Thatseems clearly intended to me) It's not democracy if you rig the election (Rigging an election is faking votes, like ghosting votes or buying them. These are real people voting, with one vote per person. All are citizens. Where is the rigging? Having a loyal group supporting you is politics.). Anyone who is saying that this sort of behavior is part of the game and is intended is skewing (identifying)the truth in thier own favor (I am not part of a PA or a city. How is any of this in my favor? In fact, i have found that the people who support your position are more often doing it for thier own favor more. There seem to be way more non-city involved people against you than for you.). If you move into a town and run for mayor, Democracy; If you move your whole PA into a town tell them all who to vote for and run for mayor, Dictatorship (wrong. still Democracy. as long as they arent forced to vote one way or another they are as valid votes as yours. majority rules), despits have used a tactic very simaler to this for ages to get more land. So don't BS us and tell us that you had moving your PA into a city to help demoracy. (strawman argument. no one ever claimed that. PA move in to be able to participate in player cities)
Your PA won't vote against you because you'll be doing everything for them (isnt that why everyone should vote for someone?), everyone else could vote against you all they want but that won't help them much now would it (nope, majority rules). It would be like the general of an army walking into a small country that has less citizens then his army and running for president, of course he's going to win, he controls the majority of the population, would anyone call that democracy. (what does any of the military overtones have to do with anything? Talk about spin! Its like a politician leading his supporters into a city, joining the city, and getting voted in)
**
"What you dont have enough skill to make your own city?"
Mmh...Ever heard of caps? If people can't have their city, they'll have yours.
My city = I am the current mayor and have earn the right to say that.
Our City = I am a citizen of said city and have earned the right to say that.... I pay my taxes therefore it is mine as well as my neighbors.
Zoning Rights = I am the mayor of this city and it is MY responsibility and MY resposibility alone to make sure the city gets developed in a manner which will be mutually beneficial to it's citizens and the player community in general.
Hostile Take Over = I as mayor am too inept at my job to keep myself in office. The only reason to have a city is get it as large as possible and to offer as many services as possible. If you feel you are being taken over, go get more people to move into your city and keep yourself in office...
Bottom line is, although I don't agree with hostile takeovers, is anyone moving into your city will not be able to vote you out of office right at that moment. You will still be mayor for another week.... Do your JOB... the time you spend sitting here whining about it, you could be out getting more people moving into your city who will give you their vote
The problem I find with the majority of the argument is that people assume the intention of player cities.
The system *allows* for democracy, true. But that does not mean that every city *must* have it. You forget that this is a role-playing game, not America. A city can have any government it wants. But how do you allow for a dictatorship and a democracy, in the same game system? You provide for the most complicated one (democracy), because the simpler system(dictatorship)is thus covered.
Voting in a democratic city is role-play. Voting in a dictated city is an OOC technicality, because the same system provides for both kinds of governments.
Who is to say that there cannot be guild-run cities? Everyone says, "this" is the Developers' intentions and "that" is the Developers' intentions. If you are not a Developer, then don't comment on their intentions.
I relate guild-run cities to thug-run cities. They exist all over this game. They are very much apart of the Star Wars universe. Entire planets are thug-run. ANYONE can move there, yes. But do they have any word in, edgewise? No.
Who is to say that player cities cannot thus be?
If the people in a city *want* a dictatorship by their mayor or guild and want to *keep* it that way, that is entirely up to them, and *not* against the system. There are free cities out there. But that does not mean that *every* city is free.
People relate this to the public/private city argument. If there was a game system out FOR private cities, then yes, your argument would be valid. As of now, there is NOT and there is no estimated time on when they will be in, if they are even put in at all (past aligning a city with a faction). Why should those who want a private city suffer or held back in any way, on something that may never even come to be? They shouldn't. Since the system provides for it, it will happen.
There are different people, with different goals in this game. To criticize anyone for wanting a dictatorship in a city goes completely against the Star Wars Universe - for there were PLENTY of dictated cities, if not planets.
It is a Universe of possibilities, and to each their own.
And lastly, and though this is a weak argument, it is just a game. Let people enjoy it.
~Casslyn