Politician Archive
Thread: Old problems, hopefully to be fixed soon
Page 1 of 1
terpfan1980
Mon Oct 18, 2004 10:53 am
#1
The player city that I used to be mayor of (peacefully handed over reigns to someone else) and am still heavily involved with has seen problems with players that are city banned becoming city residents because someone transferred a structure to them and/or because someone granted zoning to them through bribery and/or corruption (or deceit).
Because of that, I'd like to try to get the developers attention for some very important fixes that should be done to help keep down these problems.
1. Game mechanics need to be fixed and/or double checked so that no citybanned player can take ownership of a structure through the use of the transferstructure command. To be clear, if I am a legitimate resident of a city, I should not be able to /transferstru a structure over to someone that is on the citybanned list. I should get a message saying something to the effect that "the structure can not be transferred to a citybanned player". As a sanity and security check, when something like that happens, the mayor of the city should receive an e-mail letting them know that an attempt was made to transfer a structure to a citybanned player and that message should detail who the intended recipient was along with who tried to do the transfer. That would help prevent corruption among city members.
2. Granting of Zoning permissions should generate an e-mail to the mayor that details who granted zoning to whom. Again, this is a necessary sanity and security check. Mayors should be able to see who is providing access to their cities.
3. /cityban should generate e-mail to mayors also, with same details - who banned whom. Mayors shouldn't have to check the city management terminal to see who is banned, and worse (at the moment anyway), even if they do check, they can't tell who banned so they can determine why.
Without /citywarn (which seems to never be coming back), and with the holes in the current system that let people get residency when they shouldn't be able to, the issues above are vitally important. Please put new effort into getting these issues addressed with expidency.
Thanks
diack
Mon Oct 18, 2004 2:52 pm
#2
I thought that without Zoneing right that players werent able to transfer structure either?
This week i had a trusted member of my city do so, and although i didnt have an issue with that person doing so, i thought that it was not meant to work that way.
In a factioned city this is detrimental.
This week i had a trusted member of my city do so, and although i didnt have an issue with that person doing so, i thought that it was not meant to work that way.
In a factioned city this is detrimental.
HalloranElder
Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:18 pm
#3
Zoning rights only stops a player placing a new structure, it does not affect transfering structures between players.
FreeEnterprise
Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:08 am
#4
Doesnt matter, your request wont happen due to the fact that you could cityban anyone who would vote against you and thereby grief someone running against you. Mayor's dont own anything in a city.....its all property of the city and can all be taken away from you at any time by a vote.....
MTolwyn
Wed Oct 20, 2004 11:05 pm
#5
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Mayor's dont own anything in a city.....its all property of the city and can all be taken away from you at any time by a vote.....
Sounds nice but far from reallity. Most tax free cities (taxes are bugged anyway) are paid by their mayors. Most mayor spent a lot of money to upkeep the place and make it look nice.
Works usually fine, but you always have few citizens who think it s their right to do what they want. They don t pay anything for the place, get all the benefits a city can offer, but think they are the boss.
Few months ago my city has been in a bad situation. The city guild broke up cause of a stupid sensless quarrel between the leaders. So parts left the place. Suddently the rest was confronted with a possible hostile take over. So the people building up and running the city from it s very beginning, who paid all the bills, bought all the buildings,..... face the problem that some newer citizens tried to kick them out to take over the place with all it s property and money (in the cityhall)
So we had a talk with some CSRs about the consequences for destroying the city. We explained them the situation and wanted to know if we are right or not. If they would interfere as they ve done in the past in few othere cities.
They told us is OUR right to destroy the city when we want to!!!
Sure you ll say cities are a democratic union, but also in a democracy you have some rules you have to obey.
Every city has it s rules and work fine till few people ignore them.
No one is forced to live in a city. When you don t want to live there or don t like the political decission dont join it.
If you want to take part of the political business you usally be expect to work for the city.
You can t just place a house there, sit back and mock arround playing the boss.
So from my point of view, the city belongs to those who work for it and pay for it.
FreeEnterprise
Thu Oct 21, 2004 6:56 am
#6
MTolwyn wrote:
FreeEnterprise wrote:
Mayor's dont own anything in a city.....its all property of the city and can all be taken away from you at any time by a vote.....
Sounds nice but far from reallity. Most tax free cities (taxes are bugged anyway) are paid by their mayors. Most mayor spent a lot of money to upkeep the place and make it look nice.
Works usually fine, but you always have few citizens who think it s their right to do what they want. They don t pay anything for the place, get all the benefits a city can offer, but think they are the boss.
Few months ago my city has been in a bad situation. The city guild broke up cause of a stupid sensless quarrel between the leaders. So parts left the place. Suddently the rest was confronted with a possible hostile take over. So the people building up and running the city from it s very beginning, who paid all the bills, bought all the buildings,..... face the problem that some newer citizens tried to kick them out to take over the place with all it s property and money (in the cityhall)
So we had a talk with some CSRs about the consequences for destroying the city. We explained them the situation and wanted to know if we are right or not. If they would interfere as they ve done in the past in few othere cities.
They told us is OUR right to destroy the city when we want to!!!
Sure you ll say cities are a democratic union, but also in a democracy you have some rules you have to obey.
Every city has it s rules and work fine till few people ignore them.
No one is forced to live in a city. When you don t want to live there or don t like the political decission dont join it.
If you want to take part of the political business you usally be expect to work for the city.
You can t just place a house there, sit back and mock arround playing the boss.
So from my point of view, the city belongs to those who work for it and pay for it.
Believe me I feel your pain, I have been in a situation of an election, had mud slung my way, and dirty tactics used to try to take over the mayor spot. Doesnt change a thing, you dont own the city, the founders dont own the city. Every citizen owns the city, and they are allowed to take the city from you any time they want.....whatever CSR told you that is full of it, it has been proven over and over that destroying a city due to a losing election will have intervention....
These are the rules for being mayor, your job in this profession is to keep popular vote, no matter what it takes. Your money spent is no different than a fighter buying armor and weapons then declaring all creature spawns in an area his, because he invested in being a fighter! You are investing in being a mayor, now go out and keep your position the proper way...
Page 1 of 1