Politician Archive
Thread: NEW IDEA (already evidenced in game!) /TransferIncumbency
Page 1 of 1
Laeren
Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:41 am
#1
From what I've gleaned from the Fan Fest discussions, I think part of the initial problem with a resignation feature may be that it's harder to code a "resign" function, becausethe entire city is tied to that particular mayor and account. And definitely hard to dobefore another candidate is voted in, since the challengeraccount cannot show city ownership until the City Update once per week (when elections are tallied). So, what happens is that mayors cannot resign, becuase that would put the city in a limbo-state of not being owned by either candidate, until the next candidate is instated after the next city update, which is probably the reason why they haven't coded this feature in as of yet (or at least one of the reasons). I'm just guessing here, but at this stage of the game, "easy" coding solutions are probably better than "harder to-do" ones, because of all the other stuff that's going on right now.
However, the coding is already there for a non-mayor to have "incumbency". It happened to our city - the 2 candidates tied in an election, but the incumbency went to the challenger (while thecurrent mayorstill retained mayorship). During the next election cycle, the challengergot the incumbency votes, and won the following week because of those votes. So, a non-mayor having the incumbency apparently works, without undue hardship on the city itself This may well tip the balance in an election (especially if it's a 2-party election and one is simply trying to secede the election), and would definitely work in an inactive population situation.
So, perhaps we should push for this feature (the ability to transfer just the incumbency tag), rather than a strict resignation feature. That way, the current mayor (account) retains city ownership, until the legitimate election puts the other candidate into the mayor spot. THEN, all ya gotta do is not challenge after the next update, and voila!, city transferred. Of course, the current mayor would be able to pick which other candidate got the incumbency votes, and thus would technically be "sponsoring" one challenger over another. But that's how real elections work anyway.
I think anything we can do to make things easier on the coders and devs would push through faster than something that is "harder". Perhaps this is something that can just be coded on the fly, rather than requiring them to rework the entire mayor code, I don't know. But the solutions seems simple, if the code is already there (and I believe it is!).
Artistan
Tue Jul 13, 2004 8:48 am
#2
Hmm...maybe.... this should be thrown at TH and have him check with the rest of the team.
cranford
Tue Jul 13, 2004 11:44 am
#3
Another idea that I just posted in another another topic here involves letting the mayer unregister his votes and being able to eliminate them from the final count. Therefore he can not swing the election (especially if there are multiple candidates running).
Laeren
Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:33 am
#4
cranford wrote:
Another idea that I just posted in another another topic here involves letting the mayer unregister his votes and being able to eliminate them from the final count. Therefore he can not swing the election (especially if there are multiple candidates running).
This would be an idea solution (an immediate election solution) but probably more coding than they really want to get into.
See the thing is, I think "incumbency" is nothing more than a simple flag on a mayor's account in the database. When someone is elected mayor, that incumbency flag also goes with the title. And I think programming a simple "switch" to move that incumbency tag to another candidate would be hyper-simple to code, and solve almost every problem except for highly inactive mayors.
OmNiEternal
Wed Jul 14, 2004 12:50 am
#5
I think this is a great idea, although I don't see myself transfering Incumbency anytime but it would be nice to have it as an option.
Page 1 of 1