Politician Archive
Thread: So how should a mayor resign anyway?
Page 1 of 1
Fneegan
Fri Jun 18, 2004 7:59 am
#1
Well, this is a hot topic and there have been various posts (of different flavors) that it deserves a thread of it's own.
Maybe, if we open it up for discussions and concerns on the subject that we can come up with a good solution that could solve the problem and maybe it would even make it to the Devs.
Maybe, if we open it up for discussions and concerns on the subject that we can come up with a good solution that could solve the problem and maybe it would even make it to the Devs.
I am speaking from experience myself from taking over a city quite a long time ago from a mayor who resigned
- leaving our city mayorless (as the mayor continues getting xp and votes and can remove all money from the treasurey)
- where many citizens had also left at the same time
- having inactive citizens, houses, multiple accounts, ppl leaving NOT revoking residency
- eventually losing our shuttleport
- having to recruit, raise the population and the required votes to eventually win
Well, you know the story.
- leaving our city mayorless (as the mayor continues getting xp and votes and can remove all money from the treasurey)
- where many citizens had also left at the same time
- having inactive citizens, houses, multiple accounts, ppl leaving NOT revoking residency
- eventually losing our shuttleport
- having to recruit, raise the population and the required votes to eventually win
Well, you know the story.
If there are suggestions on how a incumbent mayor can resign without it being abused/exploited and is fair to current/existing mayors/politicians (who have gone thru the blood, sweat and tears of either building a city from scratch or rebuiding a dying one from a pop. of 30 to 75 - or whatever) fair to citizens, being fair to a developed Player Cities as opposed to the new mayors/politicians just beginning and undeveloped cities - let's hear it.
The success and continuation of a Player City should be the RESPONSIBILITY of it's citizens and it's mayor.
Because of its many implications, a position of mayor should first be stable and not transient. Citizens shouldn't always have be concerned of who's the new mayor, or have to constantly vote a new one in or a new one out, or have numerous mayors of varying/different politician levels or have to be subjected to possible lost of civic structures.
Currently, a incumbent mayor can successfully take ALL the money from the treasury and remove all structures that were placed (shuttleport, clone, garage, City Hall) continue be in power, gain xp and with great difficulty, be voted out.
Currently, to vote out a mayor you need 51% of citizens votes, which normally doesn't seem or shouldn't seem to be a probelm. But oftentimes it is, due to there could be many inactive players, dormat players, players that have left but their houses remain or they are still on the citizenship lists or haven't revoked residency and yadda...yadda..yadda....
Cities that have abused/exploited by having ghost, cross-server, fillers citizens shouldn't benefit from this either. It has to be fair to new and old cities and new and old mayors and be the voice, yes, the voice of it's citizens
Okay, I think I'm rambling now.....and it time for lunch - over to you.
AxlerTwinblade
Fri Jun 18, 2004 8:41 am
#2
I think a good system for this would be the following:
When a Mayor wants to resign, their should be a resigning option added tot he voting terminal. The mayor walks up and selects this. The NEXT time a player runs for mayor against him the Mayor himself will not be counted for a voted standing only the runners will so even though allthe votes default to the mayor. if 2 runners are against him and they have 10 votes and 17 votes respectivly while the mayor has 46 votes due to inactives and non players. the person with the 17 votes will win. the mayor elected to resign so he is not counted.
Now based on this.. a mayor who has just outright.. quit. you have not seen them in a month or so..After 4 weeks of NO playing or loging in, the mayors status will automatically shift to 'resigning' opening the door for someone to run against him and win. if no one runs though. the quitter mayor will remain.
as for the city funds. sorry.. i think we are screwed there i see nothing to prevent a mayor from sucking the coffer's dry. though a active mayor that is doing this and just pissing off the city... there should be a city impeachment option, dunno how that would work.
Aradia1
Fri Jun 18, 2004 10:46 am
#3
Just and idea and it won't help with MIA mayors but for those who want to resign and give over to someone else it could be helpful.
1: mayor chooses resign from radial menu on voting terminal
2: pop up box asking for name of current mayor's chosen replacement
3: chosen replacement gets a pop up box asking if he/she will accept the position
4: replacement is now mayor and the original mayor is free to do what they will
Don't know if it would work but it's an idea 
Fneegan
Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:16 am
#4
Reading the above 2 posts, I don't think it's that simple.
The problem lies in how tovote in a new one. Do you vote in from 51% of all your *citizens or the majority of voter ? Having the 51% puts the burden on both mayor and citizens to share in the responsibily of the city state for political success. Although there are inactive players etc...we're all aware of the cross server city buffing and ghost citizen - double accounts etc...
Also, a city is developed andbuilt as a Politician rises thru the Political ranks. It's is fair for a citystarting fromscratch to have to go through the Political tree (to be able to placestructures andabilities)while a larger developed city hands all it's mayorship to a Novice politician with no skills at all and retainsallstructures?
AxlerTwinblade
Sat Jun 19, 2004 12:20 am
#5
I would say yes its fair... UNTIL they make a way for you to gain XP outside of running for mayor. Winning the election should not harm your city just because you have no other way to gain XP. I mean every 4-8 years we elect a new president. the USA shouldnt have to start over each time...
Aradia1
Tue Jul 06, 2004 1:13 pm
#6
perhaps there needs to be a person who is the mayor's assistant or something...so that if the mayor needs to leave or decides to resign there is someone who would automatically take over.
StumanKadir
Tue Jul 06, 2004 5:05 pm
#7
I've always liked the following idea that has been bandied around from time-to-time.
The mayor of a city wishes to resign the office. Another resident picks up Novice Politician and registers to run for Mayor. The Mayor of the city recieves an email saying that someone is running against them with the name of the person.
The mayor can then take one of two options, they can continue the voting process as normal (ie; do nothing), or they can go to the voting terminal in the City Hall and select a new option called "Resign Office".
This option would work as follows:
- The resignation is not effective until the next city update and can be revoked at anytime without affect to the voting process.
- A resignation cannot be made within 24hours of the next city update tick.
- If at any stage after the Mayor declares his intention to resign (and before the next city update tick occurs), a 3rdresident enters the election, the resignation is automatically rescinded and the voting takes part as normal (in most cases this wouldreturn the incumbent).
- Once a Mayor selects the resignation option, an email goes out to all residents advising them of the Mayors intentions and names the other runner.
- New residents must have declared residency in the week before the current election period (eg; you cannot drop a house and vote all at once but must wait at least a week before you can vote).
- Residents who wish to run for office must of been a resident for at least one full election period.
This suggestion is not perfect but could be made to work quite easily and would in most cases stop griefing of Mayors, ambush voting, etc.
Page 1 of 1