Politician Archive

Message Edited by Abido on 03-17-2004 07:54 AM

Heh. I hit enter with only "The Day" in the title. I understand why that would be "1 Starred".... I guess. I hope you read the thread now, and change your mind.

I hope to get a bit of support on the Politician forums for this topic.

I think the only viable case a CSR can interfere with a player city is if the current mayor is completely griefing the citizens and threatens to disband it just because he/she is going to lose the next election. I believe the CSR have decided that city disbanding by a mayor who is not in favor is considered griefing, hence they can interfere. This has occured before. Yes, allowing the city to fall would allow lower level cities to advance and have been "fair" to the lower level cities. But how is it "fair" to the people who have lived in the metropolis in question that their mayor has lost his/her mind and decided to delete the city? It's not, hence interference by the CSRs until such a time that they can fix the code to prevent a single persongriefing a city of players.

I agree with this 100%. It's one thing if a city is broken because of game bugs - CSR's should intervene then. But mayoral misbehavior is part of the game! Other better-behaved cities should get their chance. The CSR was wrong.

But how is it "fair" to the people who have lived in the metropolis in question that their mayor has lost his/her mind and decided to delete the city? It's not, hence interference by the CSRs until such a time that they can fix the code to prevent a single person griefing a city of players.

---

Korrack, itis fair. This is the whole point I'm making. THEY elected this Mayor. THEY chose to live in the City with this Mayor. THEY didn't elect another Mayor. THEY will either live with the consequences of this Mayor.....or LEAVE. This is a variable to why Cities fall. Bad Mayor! They then leave, and the City falls. Its so simple, I'm really not sure how else to make this clear for you.

Grief? They elected and followed this leader. Perhaps their loyalty could be better served in another City....or with another leader. No suprise, there are tools to fix just that. You can redeed a house and move to another City. You can have another Politician run against this old Mayor, and vote his troublesome behind out. Either way, these are all reasons that a City can fall. Nota reason for a CSR to save the town, nor a reason to deny the other Cities on Naboo Eclipse their chance for Level 4. This was a textbook situation where nature should have run its course.

How can you call it fair when so many people were denied the aspect given within the game? I present to you the following Cities:

- Techno City (Imperial Garrison outside of Moenia. Over 100 people within its Level 3 radius, and more than 125 counting the area within the zone, all eager for the radius to expand)

- KITH (Great City and a bastion for Healing supplies just outside of Theed. Very well designed)

- MERC (Imperial stationed players, eagerly focused on the GCW and a fine City)

- Hale (a bustling community growing very fast west of Moenia)

- Shadowvale (a strong supporter of the area, and an increasing presence within the southern Naboo region)

- Thedoras (a growing community very active on the boards, and eagerly seeking more merchants. A growing Giant)

- Lianorm ( a very capable City in its own right. A powerful Rebel complex used to dwell here, and extremely active playerbase)

- Kauhale'Ka Makoa (this is a "secret" City that has some of the most active players on Naboo)

Korrack, are you saying that this intervention was fair to this combined Player Base? All these cities are large, active, and capable of Shuttle travel. I didn't even bother mentioning the ones that fail in this regard. In no way can you convince me that the greater good was served here. Besides, the fall of a City is an ingame feature. This went against ingame rules and understanding.

What I'm trying to communicate (thought I had in the original post) was that a Bad Mayor is a variable to which Cities fall. Even one that goes loopy. This element is a REASON Cities can fall, and nature needs to take its course. I will remind, and drive this point home often if I have to, for you to understand. BAD MAYOR NEEDS TO BE A POSSIBLE CAUSE FOR A CITY TO FALL. At no point was a CSR needed to intervene. This was an ingame function of a Bad Mayor, with 2 means of which Caserta residents could have saved themselves. Move away, or vote him out. If they fall below Level 4 in the meantime, then thats thecost that City needs to pay. Either folks are prepared to play the game like its supposed to, with both the good and the bad, or they're not.

What exactly was the damage that the old Mayor was causing? He raised taxes and made things difficult on the populace. The homes of folks "taking breaks, vacations, not even playing the game, Bot Homes" were the most effected. After all, the active Player Base could move away, right? They, if they outnumbered inactive homes, could vote this guy out, right?

The moment one makes the argument that the rights of Empty Shell homes from "Vacations, breaks from game, Bot Homes, quit game but maintenance is still paid" OUTWEIGH the rights of a Larger Player Base of "active, thriving communities waiting for their chance," I know they lost all sense of logic and fail in their argument right then and there. Empty Homes CANNOT be more important than Active Homes with people actively trying to play this game.