Politician Archive
Thread: How about current Mayor automatically put on city ballot?
Page 1 of 2
Agauro
Thu Nov 18, 2004 8:55 am
#1
Ok. Been trying to work this out in my head and maybe some feedback will help clear up something for me about the new voting changes. First let me say that I like the non-active votes being gone as it does help change Mayors if need be. But I have a question about cities that do not wish to change Mayors.
So here is what I understand to be true, if wrong please let me know.
1. Must be a citizen of the City to run for Mayor.
2. Ability to register for Mayor is closed after 2 weeks with last week being for last minute campaigning before the vote at end of that week.
3. Mayor gets triple xp for each actual vote cast during the election.
4. Current Mayor has to register to run each voting cycle and be voted on to stay in Office. (not sure what happens if Mayor is only one on ballot and no one votes, does he stay in office just no exp ?)
Soif no one registers to run against the current Mayor why must they register to run?
The way I figure it is that the Current Mayor should automatically be put on the ballot with the option to resign if they choose to. This would allow cities that have Mayors they like to have no worries if that person needs to go on vaction or RL family emergency during the voting cycle. Afterall it would still be possible for someone else to run for Mayor but the city residents would be able to still vote for the current Mayor even with them called away for something. This small change would not really lead to any griefing that I could see since if the current Mayor was not wanted then another could still register to run and the citizens would just not vote for the current Mayor. An if the citizens liked the current Mayor then they could vote for him and not the other persons registered to run. Also with the last week closed for registering to run for Mayor it still gives time for the citizens to cast vote to stop a takeover if they do not want the change in office.
I doubt it would be that big of a change to automatically put the current Mayor on the Ballot since that was way it has been working before these recent changes.
Scoooter
Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:10 am
#2
It's actually good. Because many people have had issues with mayors that have quit the game or never come on. This gives them an opportunuty to get rid of them and replace them.
All it means is you have to log the mayor on once every 3-5 weeks and add him to the race
Agauro
Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:30 am
#3
I agree with the voting changes in that it allows to get a Mayor out if they want out or the citizens want a new Mayor. Only change that I am suggesting is that the current Mayor be put on the ballot automatically. That is it. Not saying go back to giving them votes automatically.It would still require citizens to vote for him or others thatregister to run. It would just help as I said where something in Real Life comes up to prevent the current Mayor from logging on to register to run. People would still have to vote to say yes or no to keeping that Mayor in Office.
bdwsrkob
Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:49 am
#4
From what I understand the mayor does not have to register. The mayor will stay mayor as long as nobody runs against them. Now if the mayor wants the XP then they have to register and get the votes, otherwise they only get the 750 weekly "bonus". Hope this clears some stuff up.
Mayor JoseCuervo - Kashyyykur, Rori - Corbantis
-AoWL - Army of Wookie Liberation
-AoWL - Army of Wookie Liberation
Agauro
Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:55 am
#5
Well that would be nice if that is the way it works but have not see anything yet that says that. Also still brings back the issue of if a Mayor is gone for RL situation during the registration period of voting, that citizens can not vote for the current Mayor if someone else registers to run. Unless once someone registers to run it Automatically puts the current Mayor on the Ballot to signify a race for Office.
Inahpets
Thu Nov 18, 2004 2:20 pm
#6
Yeah, good point, applies to people who have to go serve military time too.
Agauro
Thu Nov 18, 2004 3:01 pm
#7
Exactly or the issue that brought it to mind. Our Mayor's Computer crashed. So he was not able to get back into game right away. But finally borrowed a computer I believe and was able to register to run. So we can vote for him in case someone that is on edge of city decides to run for Mayor. Current residents want this Mayor to stay in office but could have led to a big problem if he was not on ballot for us to vote on him.
For example here is a issue I could see happening with not putting current Mayor on the ballot automatically
1. Current Mayor has to be out of game for Real Life Situation (could be any reason) and is not able to register during registration window.
2. Citizens want to keep current Mayor but are not able to vote for him.
3. Someone living on edge of city is sucked into city as citizen due to city boundry shift.
4. New Person registers for Mayorshortly before the close of the registration window forvoting.
5. New person votes for themselves giving them one active vote.
6. Since old Mayor was not registered and no one knew till last minute thatsomeone was going to register for Mayor there is not chance to get someone else to run as Interm Mayor.
7. Since Old Mayor did not get any votes (due to not registered and not able to vote for them) then New person is now Mayor and the city has been taken over by a single Person.
So is this really the idea that Dev wanted .... really think that Current Mayor should be defaulted to be on the Ballot. Keep the voting the same way but at least if something happens to Mayor in RL then the citizens can vote for them and keep them if they wish. Heck the old way kept the incumbent on the ballot even if no one ran against them. So why change that one small thing. Mayors will still be active to get votes to get that extra exp beyond the 750 per week and if citizens decide they do not like the current Mayor then they can still vote them out even if defaulted to be on the ballot. Since only the active votes are counted to the winner then the incumbent would lose since no citizens would vote for them.
I just think that putting the Incumbent Mayor on the Ballot automatically would prevent possible situations like I described above. An before you say that it allows for compitetion then I could use the same argument then that should just open up any Mayor race to any person even non-citizens and let anyone vote in any city Mayor Race as that would be the ultimate competition.
Pappi
Thu Nov 18, 2004 6:16 pm
#8
I actually asked this a few days ago, and didn't get an ok to quote until yesterday. I agree that mayors should be automatically on the ballot, and if the mayor's inactive the citizens shouldn't vote for him. however, the current response is "no"
Agauro
Thu Nov 18, 2004 9:31 pm
#9
So they changed something that was there before that people still want, "Incumbent Mayors being on the ballot", and now do not want to change it back cause it was one of their code changes?
Being a programmer myself formore years then I care to count I can tell you that I have changed code back many times cause it was in line with what the customer wanted.I never let my ego about the code I had written and thought was great to be a factor. Number one rule I applied was "yeah I did some neat stuff but the customer is right."
This really makes me wonder if it is worth posting to the forums anymore. Since the only ones that seem to care about posts are the other players and the corrspondent. Does not seem that the Devs want to know a position other then their own. Shame really since we have so many people that actually post with positions or suggestions that would help or improve the game.
Pappi you can close this thread if you like since it seems that the powers that be do not care about my opinion and are not willing to entertain any suggestions that make them step outside their perception of reality.
I feel real sorryfor thefirst city that falls and is destroyed because incumbent Mayor was not able to register in the window allowed and it could have been solved by having them automatically on the ballot.
An thanks Pappi for allowing me to rant.
Agauro
Thu Nov 18, 2004 10:44 pm
#11
Yeah I know which is why I included you with the rest of us players when I said "Since the only ones that seem to care about posts are the other players and the corrspondent." Oh an my bad was typing so fast spelled it wrong.
Once again thanks to you for the work. It is the Devs that are not really impressing me right now.
Pappi
Fri Nov 19, 2004 12:07 am
#12
Agauro wrote:Yeah I know which is why I included you with the rest of us players when I said "Since the only ones that seem to care about posts are the other players and the corrspondent. " Oh an my bad was typing so fast spelled it wrong.Once again thanks to you for the work. It is the Devs that are not really impressing me right now.
I was just referring to deleting the thread. deleting and locking threads are mod powers, I can only sticky or unsticky them.
Page 1 of 2