Politician Archive
Thread: Annoying issue with crybaby mayors
Heh. Yes I am in the same city as Goraf. Though to be honest, I couldn't care less about the city 
. I am part of the guild and joined the city just to help up the poplulation. My "real" house with all my furnishings is on another planet.
I justthink SOE did something that developers tend to do (been a software developer for 10+ years). They have implemented something very complex and very interesting, but I think it missed the mark of what players really want. Now they are stuck with it and are going to have headache after headache trying to mold the players into accepting it for what it is. They should have implemented something much more limited in scope and then expanded it based on how players used it (i.e. built compounds and then expanded to cities when the player base was ready).
But... we have cities now. And we need to deal with the issues inherent with them. They are not "owned" by a PA. I believe someone mentioned "Get over it" with respect to "crybaby" mayors. My only comment is... I understand the concept of Player Cities and am working within that philosophy. Allowing mayors to essentially destroy your city cause they are not feeling loved doesn't hold with that philosophy.
P.S. Yah, requiring a vote every time you repositioned a building would be nasty. Would be nice to be able to reposition it without redeeding it.
There are always two sides to each story. Like I have said, it all depends on the situation.
The town I am mayor of consists of 4 PAs and some independents. Who owns the town? Nobody. Who paid for it all? A few of us. What do those of us who paid for it all want? A nice city to call home
Now all of you who keep complaining about everything should go play with your own cities and leave us real mayors alone 
Sad to say, but there are "those" people who think that the city is owned by a player or PA and not by the citizens who pay to live there.
I think it would be good to be able to move structures without having to re-deed everytime. But if they put in a delay, like a week or so, that would suck for people who are just trying to get everything lined up how they want it.
hallauer wrote:
Sad to say, but there are "those" people who think that the city is owned by a player or PA and not by the citizens who pay to live there.
I think it would be good to be able to move structures without having to re-deed everytime. But if they put in a delay, like a week or so, that would suck for people who are just trying to get everything lined up how they want it.
I agree with both of your statements, but one thing to consider is that the Dictator was voted in, so who is to say the populace does not want them there? Something to think about....
A dictator mayor can only remain a dictator mayor as long as the populace lets them.
True True. If the PA wants a dictator as mayor, then the other citizens better find a bunch more people to tryhim vote him out. That or they'll have to just pick up and move elsewhere.
But everyone knows that the PA will just end up server swapping so they don't lose "THEIR" city!
True True. If the PA wants a dictator as mayor, then the other citizens better find a bunch more people to tryhim vote him out. That or they'll have to just pick up and move elsewhere.
If the other citizens do not want the dictator, your correct. The problem is, everyone is talking as if a dictator run town is bad. If the populace (pa or non-pa) keep him/her in power, who are we to say that this is bad? You run your town like you want it, I'll run mine like I want and we will leave it up to the citizens to decide who stays in power (note: you is used in the general sense)
But everyone knows that the PA will just end up server swapping so they don't lose "THEIR" city!
True..... true....
Palor, my problem is not with dictatorships ( although I do scream about them a lot for the fun of it ). The problem here is that a mayor that is about to loose can decimate a towns treasury and very existance.
That needs to be fixed.
Dayln wrote:
Palor, my problem is not with dictatorships ( although I do scream about them a lot for the fun of it ). The problem here is that a mayor that is about to loose can decimate a towns treasury and very existance.
That needs to be fixed.
What I have often though is that maybe 3 days before an election, everything has a "freeze" put on it. No treasury access, not being able to destroy the town hall, no civics being able to be moved, etc. That would prevent it, but I could also see that same scenario interfering with running the town. I cannot think of a better alternative at the moment though.
it is very necessary to have the ability to withdraw funds from city hall for varied reasons such as:
- not having a rich mayor or citizens to front the costs of purchases
- paying for city services such as having an entertainment troop perform for a city event
- paying people to redeed houses and move them to better structure city
- intentionally planning as a group to have city moved to new location for various reasons and not wanting to lose credits when you destroy city hall
I'm sorry you feel that way but there are many valid city expenses, including purchasing decorations for city. While often there will be people who willingly front the cash/donate, these ARE city expenses and not personal ones. It should be paid with city funds, not personal funds