Politician Archive

I know the majority of the people would like to see or expect to see democracies pop up all over the place. After all, the game system is designed to give governmental leadership to the person with the most votes, so it seems natural. For RPers, and the casual gamer, that is fine and dandy. However,left to its own evolution, issues of power, organization, social dynamics, and psychology lead a different path. I believethe initial governments are more tribal with a respected and accepted Chieftan who runs the show with the approval and support of his people. These were/are PAs.

Now that extra benefits are available, these societies (and new ones) are moving towards Player Cities. ThePolitican XP and Politician bonuses for these player cities will alter these societies.Even now, societies feel obligated to support thier Mayor until he reaches master (6 months?) to get all the benefits possible from him. Then it is another period of time to get a 2nd player up to Master level to have even ground competition (6 more months? or longer, because he can only get 1/2 the xp, so that the Master can remain Mayor. a year?) A year or more under one ruler. Power more and more guaranteed as the society invests more and more time into him. Through this entire process, the Chief needs less and less support from his society. His voice will carry more and more weight in discussions. As long as he provides enough lip service to stave off open revolt, he can do whatever he pleases. At this point, I think he is more of a Monarch than a Chief.Once a leader is no longer easily replaceable, in this case because of the fear of having to have a Novice Politician with no bonuses run the city, you get to the Authoritarian regimes.

Those who readily and nakedly use this fear with threats to browbeat his citizens into obedients will be the Dictators. These cities will 1)never be fully competitive, because the individual citizens will never have the drive to help it grow, and2)new citizens wont be attracted.

Those who are more careful with thier power,going with the communities wishes often, will seem like democracies (since people get to have a lot of say). However when push comes to shove, it would become apparent that the Leader has all the power, and if he doesnt want to do something, he doesnt have to. I consider this to be more of a benevolent monarchy. He may not lord it over you, or push people around, but make no mistake, he IS the king, and will be for quite a while. He'll just play along with you as long as it doesnt contradcit him. These societies should do better than the Dictators in both numerated areas.

Finally, there will be Democratic Republics. They should do great in area 1). However, they will not achieve the Politician abilities as quickly or possibly as thoroughly as the other governments. Lack of facilities can cause it to do poorly in 2) new citizen attraction.

Thats why I think SWG is headed for a year or more of Benevolent Monarchies. At first, not quite what I'd expect in a Star Wars Universe. However, if you wanna think of it like Benevolent Imperial Governers, maybe it works. With Harsh Imperial Governers failing, and Rebel Democracies thriving but less advanced, I can almost get into the idea. Maybe Benevolent Monarchs wont be so bad. Just pick your monarchs carefully. They might be fine now, but once you rely on them they may be very different people.

The tendency of western players, especially those from the States, will be to install a Democracy of some kind. You'll see people trying to institute 3-branched governments.

Two things will be king -- rapport with the citizens and efficiency.

Honestly, the best bet is to have a two-tiered government. If you have an executive and legislative body, you end up with the most efficient, AS LONG AS EVERYONE PLAYS BY THE RULES. A mayor who decides to say "F--- this, I'm gonna do what I want not what the people chose" can be voted out. The executive and legislative would share responsibility on dispute resolution. Begin the dispute resolution at the militia stage, appeal to the council, final, discretionary appeal to the Mayor.

The problem is that the Mayor, not matter how much is apportioned out will generally get veto power, cause, well, the game sets up an enlightened despot model of politics.

All other politicial structures are going to be purely for RP and feeling out the citizenry purposes, which really, is what makes these fun. Can a bunch of players avoid the obvious pitfalls of a government with anylevel of beuracracy? Only time will tell, but it hasn't worked for democracy, socialism, communism, or any other -ism or -acy out there. Graft and corruption are the beasts of beuracracy and power.

One other option for a city is, of course, general strike. Instead of voting out the mayor, just leave so that it drops below the 10 person mark. Bang. No more city, start over.

Yes, revolution is always an option. Whether this is voting in a new leader, or simply depopulating a town out of existance, they both work as deterants to Authoritarian leaders. However! In each of these situations, the Authoritarian leader is still a Politician with many levels and lots of xp, he can still find a place in other communities, even be a Mayor. The citizens lose, they have to redo up to 6 months of voting to get a Mayor with the same game-given skills. As the realities of not being as good a town as thier neighbors sets in, it seems inevitable people will move. Those emmigrants as well the ones who left earlier when the leader was a jerk, and a new novice Politician, will diminish the city as a whole. They can probably sustain a nice little town, but is unlikely to be a major metropolis. Remember, whether you want to or not, you are in competition with every other city for citizens, taxes, etc.

So, the ruler has less to lose, so he will go ahead and exercise his power. If the citizens decide to revolt, the end result will be the destruction of the city. Either quickly, with a mass emmigration, or slowly, regressing and eventually losing out to the bigger cities. In fact, this will be one of the methods that nations will evolve. Survival of the fittest. Cities will get destroyed from without from invading groups taking over, or from within through bad leaership. The ones that can avoid both will be the metropolises of the future.

Speaking of which, how many citizens will be in a fully formed metropolis? Is it a 450m radius circle? And dont forget suburbia, who wont be in the zone, so wont be citizens or vote, but will still live and play and work and buy in the city.....300 people? I wonder how many stable metropolis can possibly exist serverwide. Hmm.

---

unity200 wrote:
in any case if people are not happy with the mayor they will be able to change the mayor whatsoever. maybe theyll lag behind, but hey, no revolution is without pain.

---

I don't know what the rest are doing, but our city was basically built out of our guild. What happened after that was a bit of a leadership messthat required resolving (without bloodshed, just necessary reworking). What we've ended up with is an acknowledgement that the Guild is effectively the military establishment, while the City isa civilian entity

With our role in the GCW this works quite nicely. The guild operates out of the city,manages their base complex, and operates as the heavy military support/guard for the city. The civilians appoint their own militia as police,and the crafters and healers operate within the city toprovide logisticsforthe guild.

There are two leadership structures (one military, one civilian) and both come under an overarching umbrella 'leadership' group, created out of the top levels of each.

We'll see how it works, but it definately looks promising.