Politician Archive
Thread: Dictatorships
What is the problem people have with dictatorships in SWG? I'm just wondering... I've heard the devs have said they never intended the city system to be a dictatorship, but you know what? why not? it makes far more sense to have a dictatorship in SWG then a democracy... the following taken from SWG Stratics:
The goals of the Imperial Faction (a.k.a. the Empire) are to control the galaxy through means of fear and oppression in the hopes of "creating an orderly and uncorrupt galaxy (or more casually put "For the glory of the Emperor"). The Empire will use their endless amount of resources to end what "villainy and terror" is present within the galaxy.
The goals of the Rebel Faction (a.k.a. Rebel Alliance) are to control the galaxy through the means of democracy and law in the hopes of restoring peace and freedom to the galaxy.
Seems to me that if an imperial placed a city it would be totally reasonable for them to run a dictatorship. It would have made far more sense to add an option on placing city hall to declare the city a dictatorship, or a democracy. Thus there wouldn't have been griefing since people would only have themselves to blame by selecting a democracy as their choice of government. But thats all hindsight, so even if it doesn't make much sense to me that the devs forced democracy on us, why are people whining about the types of cities people choose to run... i mean have you even thought about it? or are you so indoctrinated towards democracy that you can't relate a game to the environment it is set in?
Regards,
But in fact we do have a dictorship. Yeah you vote a guy in. But that guy has complete control over the city. He/she has the rights to destroy a whole city all by himself. He/she needs no votes to take away your Clonning Center, your bank, your shuttleport or even your City Hall. So that dictorship is there. Even when you had a real militia it was your Mayor who selected the militia.
Fortunately, players aren't peasants in this game. They have composite armor, speederbikes, rocket launchers, and AT-STs. Try oppressing that. I'm sorry, but the dynamic of the game environment where all players want to be "the hero" doesn't allow for dictatorships. Everyone has strength. There's no proletariate to dictate too.
The system we have now is the only feasible system given the nature of the game.
You're missing the point. It is absolutely about what a group wants. My point isn't that you can't create a dictatorship within the game dynamics. Though I think it would have been nice and prevented a large amount of griefing... but the system is in place... My point is that dictatorships are a reality of the SWG universe, so if a city chooses to create a dictatorship it is perfectly reasonable. The fact that people whine about this, and the devs have said that it was never their intention to create anything but a democratic city seems very very flawed imo. As for everyone being a hero? 1) they can't do anything about it now save vote weekly anyways 2) no matter how powerful they are they can't attack anyone without that persons consent 3) the best vote is and always will be moving out of the city... and its not the only way to implement it... its just the way soe chose to... there are lots of scenarios that would have worked just as well if not better... but i'm not complaining about the system... i'm complaining about people who whine about how the system is used...I run a dictatorship... i had a guest in my city spew crap to me about how i was an ahole for running one and it wasn't fair to them... were they a citizen? no... just some stranger mouthing off... note lack for /citywarn here... and i've seen it in these boards as well... its ridiculous to me... if our citizens want a dictatorship who are non-citizens to judge... its not like our city is camping out a POI.... we're in a far corner of Lok...
Regards,
I agree with you Shaedar. It is a PLAYER city, not a DEVs city. If the players elect to have one person to run the city and control and management, that is their right. If a city wants to have a mayor with a council, that is their right.
Wait, what about those mayors that do what they want without regard to the citizens. Easy - run for office and hope to win, back another opponent to the current mayoror move. Citizens have the the power. That is the power of the vote. If you don't like your city, you can move. Nothing is preventing you from moving.
Problem was the shortsightenedness of the DEVs that allowed PLAYER cities to overlap POIs but not to overlap npc/starting cities. This allowed PLAYER cities to control POIs with citywarn which in turn created griefing.
As for citywarn being a problem. Yes and no. Yes because it was used to control POIs. I'm neutral and I walked through a PLAYER city on Tatooine and I got a message that have been warned and the militia would attack me. So I left. It happen again at that PLAYER city again. I have now told my friends about this situation and the artisians in that PLAYER city town has lost the business of 53 people. Now was my experience grief. No. It is a PLAYER city and they have the right to police thier city (as long as it doesn't interfere with my right to enjoy the game). This PLAYER city was not overlapping a POI, so I see no problem with them citywarning everyone they want. They want a private city, they can have it. I just won't give them any business nor will any of my 53 friends. That is our right.