Politician Archive

---

TobisYuri2k wrote:

As a mayor I think I should have the power to condem a house of a citizen of my city if they have done something to hurt my city, or they have left my city for another. I also think that as a mayor I should have some demolitition powers as well. If a player has become an enemy of my city but still has a house in my city, I should be able to condem the house for 2-4 weeks (Condeming the house will take the house to 0% Status) The only way to get this house uncondemed (in order to get your items out) you must pay to get it uncondemed (The price would be the usual mantience fee for an item that is going down in status). After the 2-4 weeks of this house being condemed (even if the player has paid the uncondem price) the mayor can destroy this structure. Once the mayor destroys a house the player has 3 months to pick up any items left in the house, these items go into the bank of the player city and in private safety deposit like box. In order to recieve these items the player has to pay a small fee, the fee price would depend on what kind of structure you had, if it is a large house you pay 20k, if it is a small house you pay 5k. This would allow for mayors to clean up their dead cities and get rid of those unwanted citizens, without greifing the player by deleteing their items.

What do you guys think? This could be considered instead of the "purge" that has been talked about or keep up with the purge but allow mayors to clean up their cities before a purge happens.

---

Need the purge, people that no longer play have homes taking up space for people that want to move in and be an active part of the city.

I agree that we should have a purge, but this idea would be nice to have as well. Being able to remove even an active members house without deleting the items would be extremely nice for us mayors.

It sounds nice at first.

I would like the idea if mayors have the ability to destroy structures that became condemned because of the lack of maintenance.

But this? I don't know, it leaves far to much way open to grief someone.

I see your point about greifing someone, but think about it, the player is greifing the mayor just by leaving the house condemed where it is. I don't think this should be considered greifing since you would only destroy the house if you did not want the citizen inside the city. I couldn't picture mayors destroying structures for the fun of it since most people in the city they probaly want. If the mayor destroys the structure of a player that he likes then that mayors needs to find some help because that would make his/her city look bad. One thing I would make sure of though is if someone runs for mayor against the current mayor their house cannot be destroyed until after the current election is over:

(For Example: Player 1 is current mayor and player 2 is the one running against him.) Player 2 doesn't like how Player 1 is running things. So Player 2 runs for mayor in their town, Player 1 does not like this so he destroys player 2's house, well Player 1 gets a message saying he must wait X ammount of days (X being the ammount of days until the election is over) If Player 1 wins the election then Player 1 can destroy Player 2's house no questions asked but the mayor has to condem the house, this time if Player 2 runs for mayor there is no stoping the condemed house but you do have time to win the election, but if Player 2 wins the election then Player 1 is out of Luck, now one thing that should happen if they want to be fair is that Player 2 cannot destroy any houses until after the next election IE to allow Player 1 to try and get the Mayor Rank back.

That scenario would allow for a non-grief situation for anyone who wants to run against the current mayor. Now if you are worried about the mayor going crazy and all of a sudden the mayor just runs around destroying houses then check this next situation out. The mayor has to condem a house for 2-4 weeks this allows a player to still own the house, now if the player does nothing from the day the the house is condmed until the day the mayor can destroy the house then that is entirly up to the player. But if the player would like to remain then all he/she has to do is pay the fee to uncondem the house. The mayor could still condem the house again after 24 hours of the player uncondeming the house but by that time the player could be moved out. If the player truely wants to stay in the location he/she is at then they can pay the fee for uncondeming the house. This could be seen as greifing a player, but it really is not, it is merely a way to make someone pay for the lot they are on if that person is un wanted.

I guess if you wanted to have a fail safe incase the mayor just starts to condem every house in the city then you have someone run for mayor, you vote for that person and if that person wins then you are in good shape. If that person loses then you are out of luck, but if the mayor is destroying every structure he/she sees then I doubt you would have that hard of a time to out vote the mayor.

This idea would take some planning and wouldn't happen over night but it would allow those mayors who just want to clean up an area of their cities a way to do so, and it would allow those mayors who might have someone in their city that is unwanted to either fine them for the location of their house or get rid of them all together. All in All if the mayor did destroy the persons house that person would still have access to his items via that cities bank.

Anyway for a Mayor to get rid of unwanted/abandoned houses would be great! The only thing I think that should be placed is that the citizen has to pay a fee to the city if they want to uncondem their house/show they are active. This would allow mayors to get rid of unwanted citizens, IE if the citizen could care less about being in the city then they just don't pay the fee. The only thing about your idea that wouldn't go by with the devs is siezing the items. Even if you allow them 3 weeks to get these items that still wouldn't be probable since someone might take a month of leave from time to time. Having these items placed in a safety deposit box that can only be access by that player in that city would be more probable I think.

TalonWolf's idea is good but the original poster;s idea is flawed... Yes it would be very helpful but this power would be abused severely.

I'm going to respond only because I'd like to see something done. Here's my support for a comdemning system.

It can be done so people don't lose anything from the act, except the location they placed on. Ultima Online has a system where if you delete someone elses vendor the contents are placed in a crate for them to come pick up. Why can't the devs make a system where after a set amount of time a home can be condemned and the house along with its contents will be packed up and placed in the players bank?

One of the original members of my guild/city has gone missing and we cannot get his house moved. Our layout has changed and his house is a problem for future development now. We also have spies who have been uncovered but nothing can be done about it. A mayor runs a town, a milita protects it, but not in SWG, not with the current system. Messing up someone's city is like being able to go and sabatoge a weaponsmiths gun. It's our profession and our product. Outside elements can't mess with any crafters profession, why give others the power to ruin what mayors have created?