CUEmu - Thread Posts

Kabooobie

Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:13 am

I agree with Rorenikibi

we run our city the same way...same rules....

I still want to argue about city ownership.....all our citizens/guildies agree that the city/guild belongs the me and the guild leader.....they know that itsin the best interest of everyone there. They gave our premission to do whatever we want concerning the guild/city when they joined......so it could never be griefing to take down the city hall (even if their winning). Our city is a part of our guild, and if our guild members everdovote against the mayor and manage to get a majority...then we will destroy the city with our guilds name in it and disband the guild because we obviously dont have enough loyal members to operate.

I never stop being amazed by how many ppl cant except things that r done differently than they think it should be. I've agreed with a few things you guys have said, I would never ruins someones game, though you gotta be a pretty big baby if you think taking down some city will ruin your game, i mean come one, theres plenty of good cities other than ours.....no one else has put any effort into our city other than us....so the only person it would hurt is us. We all have different situations in our cities. The guild leader an I, personaly, would not want a city, with our guilds name in it, being run by someone that is not an appointed representative of the guild(assuming they didnt change the name). There would be no way of controling how our guilds image is displayed to visitors and certain city features that we use for events would no longer be in our control. Yes, we are control freaks, but control is what you need to effectivly run things.

Kabooobie

Thu Aug 26, 2004 11:32 am

#54

Ok, numenroUno"1".....We dont force anyone to live in our city.....if they dont want to join the city, they dont join the guild (unless they r a trial account and waiting to buy the game orare good friends of a guild member). Just because they want in the guild doesn't mean they get in either. We dont mind people putting house's on the outside of our city, in fact i dont think think i said anything about that....try taking another look. People can leave if they want. How the heck can you saywe're forcing anyone? Why would a non-citizen have to pay an extra fee on the shuttleport?We cant stop someone from running against us!! Did you not read that i acknoledge that voting terminals exist? I said they can try to voteus out, and we can take down the city if we choose. Ignorant......

Taphm

Fri Aug 27, 2004 1:53 am

#55

This is almost exactly how I attempted to say our city is run. I agree with this method completely as it is the only way many cities have survived on my server. Most of the originally placed cities that attempted a completely democratic method of running died off and have vanished from the face of the server. Some of slowly come back, but ours has NEVER lost its rank 4 status, though we have occasionally lost rank 5.

The way I, and my guild, look at it is not that the structures or the city is mine, I'll be the first to admit its not mine, depsite how I run it. It is however not the citizens, it and everything in it belongs to our guild. Everyone in the guild has contributed credits or rsources or time to its creation. The non guild citizens of our city are simply there because they liked the location we had chosen and were willing to accept the fact that they would more then likely never have a roll in how the city is governed. If they don't like it they can join our guild, or move elsewhere.

Fneegan

Fri Aug 27, 2004 6:37 am

#56

Vinjar wrote:

I'll get flamed for this, but I really don't care. I would never pull the shuttle, the decorations, etc. However, I paid for every decoration and civic structure as well as approximately 75% of the houses in the city. If I wanted, I would pull that stuff in a hearbeat. Fortunetly I'm not that petty, but it would be my right. I agree that the city is everyones. However, if someone who paid for something wanted to take it back, it is their right.

I think, by nature, mostof usmayors have suppliedstructures and also put tons of money in the treasury and we know, if a mayor wanted to destroy the city when they leave - they can.(well, most of us in this forum knows but probably not all cits know).

The point is, an incumbent mayor is not a a*hole while in powerwhy should they be one resigning or being outvoted either.
Although, some may want perfect citizens, create rules for there city (dictatorship or not) or get into City/PA disagreements, doesn't mean if it doesn't workout that way that they should just go destroy a city.

Personally, I would never join a city that I need a lawyer present to sign the city policy and rules. That's a little bit overboard.

If one, successfully outvotes a mayor (as opposed to a city coupe from outside the city), then it's a clearexample that there's unrest within the city and the citizens have chosen what they find a bettersolution. Also, during this time of new acandidate(s), the incumbent mayor has plenty of opportunity to have either recruited new citizens or gotten support from the current citizens.

But, if someone (newb or not) comes up to me and says, hey, I'd like to outvote you and become mayor doesn't mean I should retaliate in any way, shape or form. And, if they are becomming successful doesn't mean a mayor should do in "self-destruct mode".

Back to my morning coffee now.....

Kabooobie

Sat Aug 28, 2004 11:02 am

#57

Fneegan wrote:

I think, by nature, mostof usmayors have suppliedstructures and also put tons of money in the treasury and we know, if a mayor wanted to destroy the city when they leave - they can.(well, most of us in this forum knows but probably not all cits know).

The point is, an incumbent mayor is not a a*hole while in powerwhy should they be one resigning or being outvoted either.
Although, some may want perfect citizens, create rules for there city (dictatorship or not) or get into City/PA disagreements, doesn't mean if it doesn't workout that way that they should just go destroy a city.

Personally, I would never join a city that I need a lawyer present to sign the city policy and rules. That's a little bit overboard.

If one, successfully outvotes a mayor (as opposed to a city coupe from outside the city), then it's a clearexample that there's unrest within the city and the citizens have chosen what they find a bettersolution. Also, during this time of new acandidate(s), the incumbent mayor has plenty of opportunity to have either recruited new citizens or gotten support from the current citizens.

But, if someone (newb or not) comes up to me and says, hey, I'd like to outvote you and become mayor doesn't mean I should retaliate in any way, shape or form. And, if they are becomming successful doesn't mean a mayor should do in "self-destruct mode".

Back to my morning coffee now.....

L

et me get his straight once and for all.

We dont force anyone to live in our city.....

None of ushave a lawyers around to sign things (i have know idea where you got that from)

Any we're not taking down a city hall because one newb threatended me,

I said i would take it down"if"half or more of our guild members(citizens) descide to try and take over everything. The city is named after the guild and we wouldnt want someone running the citythat wasn't appointed by the leader of the guild. At that point the guild leader wound disband the guild anyway because everyone betrayed her.

PloMaster

Mon Aug 30, 2004 11:05 am

#58

thats sickning....... If i was voted out id leave with out a problem... i mean yeah i love my city but i would never do anything to heart my citizens or my guild mates...

Tombacca- Master Tera Kasi/ Master Ranger/ Master Politician
Carb'on- Master Fencer/ Master Doctor
Tom- - Master Artisan/ Master DroidEngineer/ Master Merchant

AAA Resources 800m out side of C-net starport restocked once every 3 days with new and old resources wp- 660 -5068.

Kabooobie

Mon Aug 30, 2004 4:30 pm

#59

This isn't going anywhere.....

Moff_Ziridar

Mon Aug 30, 2004 10:39 pm

#60

If people want to run a city with a democratic government that's fine...but a person should have the right to hold the Administration unopposed if they built the city themselves and have made it clear what type of govnerment they're running. If you're a full time Politician and you build your city up from scratch it IS your city. ItIS your character...it's what you have to show for yourself. If people move into your city fully aware that it is not a democracy... they cannot just come along and STEAL your hard work and efforts away from you. It does not belong to them and I would go as far as to say it's like hacking someone's account and stealing their character. There's nothing wrong with a dictator...if they are doing their job right...and if they aren't? Don't live in their city. YOU HAVE THAT CHOICE.If a Politician comes along and wins an election in a democratic city and then tries to hold the administration using threats and ultimatums...that is JUST as unacceptable and they should be dealt with. I think the best thing they could do is actually IMPLEMENT different types of government that can be chosen once the city is founded. People obviously feel different about Democratic vs Dictatorship and I think it would just be best to have them both as selectable governments. Politicians would have a choice, and everyone else has the choice of where they want to live. Both sides are accommodated.

Politician Archive

Thread: Retaliation if someone else runs for mayor