Politician Archive
Thread: Inactivity Poll (Residence Revocation)
FlyingElmo
Wed Jan 28, 2004 8:08 pm
#27
E
That or impliment a new solution that both resolves the problems with the old solution while maintaining its purpose.
Adjoint
Thu Jan 29, 2004 2:36 am
#29
E. Leave it as it is.
My opinion is SOE should fix 1st all their bugs and solve the prob that makes servers restart everyday.
AFTER they can talk for anything else.
Really this job should be done by mayors if tehy think this must be done and WHEN they think it should be done. Cities are player things and should be controlled only by players.
That change would ruin fun.If s/one RL should be away for 1 month or RL probs keep him/her away while he/she "pays" SWG then he shouldnt be revoked by SOE from the city he/she is
Nairb3
Thu Jan 29, 2004 5:32 pm
#30
Its not like lose there citizenship for good once they log back in they can redeclare and wooh hoo they got there citzenship back.... ohh that was hard
-Stinky
Thu Jan 29, 2004 8:27 pm
#31
E.
I mean come on . . .
There are FAR more pressing issues that need addressing than this.
Blacksbain
Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:29 am
#32
Granted, the person can get their citizenship back, however, what happens to a town on the verge of downgreade? There will probably be houses on the edge of city limits, or factories. Thouse houses and things inside, (to my understanding) go poof, do they not? That is completly unfair! Hey, I could also be miss-guided here. Correct me if I'm wrong. 
Starwarsmatrix
Fri Jan 30, 2004 10:59 am
#33
Choice E:
I agree with others here that as long as a persons account is paid, they should be allowed to retain their residency and citizenship in the city they are in.
I agree with others here that as long as a persons account is paid, they should be allowed to retain their residency and citizenship in the city they are in.
JediKozel
Fri Jan 30, 2004 11:20 am
#34
A.
Our mayor has been banned, so the city is on auto-run.We are having hard time to elect new mayor, becuase out of 100 citizen about 50 are inactive, and their default votes go to the banned incumbent mayor ... Which brings me to another point - some cities reach city limits by use of alt. characters, cross-server trade, and semi-active players. It's not against the game policy, I know. But it's unfair to the cities that have hundreds of active players (from multiple PAs), but cannot achive metropolis status because of some ghost city. I think that is what might be drivingDevs to implement this feature. And I don't buy the vacation argument - nobody takes 3 week vacations. They take 3 week brakes from a game, and if they do I doubt they care much what happens with their citizenship status.
Mathiasf
Fri Jan 30, 2004 4:49 pm
#35
I guess b wouldnt be so bad, but I think there other things that are more pressing than this.
electricnomad
Fri Jan 30, 2004 6:44 pm
#36
B.
Let's have real cities, not ghost town vanity projects. No way should inactive squatters block active players from building a vibrant city where people actually participate.
Dump the inactive players from the citizenship list and let real cities blossom elsewhere.
Grimly64
Sun Feb 01, 2004 8:14 am
#37
Answer is C,
Why you ask? Played regularly almost every day, logged on for one thing or another. Had a house with enough maintenance for a few days. Then BOOM, Hurricane hit!!! Was without power for 10 days. Logged back on, house was gone, POOF!. Sent a CSR ticket.......bastards didn't even read it, (e-mal message said so).
This happened in 10 days, (yes not enough credits in for maintenance, but who the heck knew the power would be out so long, so don't even go there) Took my lumps and moved on. So when I see such belly aching about 3 WEEKS no activity? There is nothing else to do but LMAO....hard. Yes there could be legit reasons, but SOE don't care.
But you gotta ask yourself one question, is the ones crying the loudest also the ones that paid other people from other servers to place houses? Sounds like an easy bet.
(also noticed words like "my" city, or " I " will lose so many people, hmmmm guess you show your colors and who pays the most out of pocket to keep the city going. Rarely do I see words like "our" city. "we"
Dralar
Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:35 pm
#38
A) All the way
I detest the idea of ghost citizens just to increase citizen count. If you can't find enough citizens then there is something wrong. Our city, Talath, is located on Rori (Tempest server) a planet where few people bother to visit, yet we have a city of 42 active players and increasing. I frequently make trips to other player cities to see how they are fairing and more often than not I neither see nor hear any activity. True, people play at different times, but there are some cities in which I have yet to see a person present.
After 3 weeks the ghost loses citizenship of the city. Nothing is done to the structures of said person, I believe that to be another matter (and one for which I do not hold the answers). People cry about city caps, well I think this is an answer. If you have a thriving community desring that coveted metropolis ranking help SOE kill ghosts.
I detest the idea of ghost citizens just to increase citizen count. If you can't find enough citizens then there is something wrong. Our city, Talath, is located on Rori (Tempest server) a planet where few people bother to visit, yet we have a city of 42 active players and increasing. I frequently make trips to other player cities to see how they are fairing and more often than not I neither see nor hear any activity. True, people play at different times, but there are some cities in which I have yet to see a person present.
After 3 weeks the ghost loses citizenship of the city. Nothing is done to the structures of said person, I believe that to be another matter (and one for which I do not hold the answers). People cry about city caps, well I think this is an answer. If you have a thriving community desring that coveted metropolis ranking help SOE kill ghosts.
Fidgiter
Mon Feb 02, 2004 2:58 pm
#39
Poll Results
A total of 31 distinct responses were made to the poll which clearly selected one of the 5 responses.
3 or 9.7% of the responses favored 3 weeks
5 or 16.1% of the responses favored 6 weeks
2 or 6.5% of the resonses favored 3 or 6 weeks but lot cleared for reuse
4 or 12.9% of the responses favored redefining "Inactive"
17 or 54.8% of the responses were totally opposed to the Inactivity rule
5 or 16.1% of the responses favored 6 weeks
2 or 6.5% of the resonses favored 3 or 6 weeks but lot cleared for reuse
4 or 12.9% of the responses favored redefining "Inactive"
17 or 54.8% of the responses were totally opposed to the Inactivity rule
A & B are where a city resident would loose their residence status if they do not log in in three or 6 weeks respectively. The total support for this is 25.8%.
C is a qualified Yes to the 3 or 6 week rool provided that retired citizen lots could be recycled for putting active citizens to fill the gap. The total support for this is 6.5%.
D & E range from a redefinition of what qualifies as "Inactive" to opposition to the whole principle. The total opposition to the SOE action that is being tested is 67.6%
The conclusion at this is that a solid majority of the participants of this poll are opposed to the 3 and 6 week rules regarding inactive players loosing their resident status.
Mayor Feliz Gizmacher, Founder of Dune Retreat