Settlement leader Activity

[JustMonika]

Owning a Guildhouse/Quarter requires a certain level of online presence or it goes up for sale.

Being elected to a leadership post requires no such commitment, indeed you can get elected and not log in for a month, longer than you can hold the guildhouse for?

What are peoples thoughts on mandating a similar activity requirement or an election is automatically triggered?

[monkeywithstick]

I prefer the idea of allowing the appointed officials to vote of no confidence the leader. If a majority of appointed officials (deciding who counts for this is a sticky one) wish to remove the leader, an election is triggered.
Right now, there is literally nothing we can do bar grin and bear it or resign.

If I stay in post at present with an absent/unresponsive settlement leader I can point to the individual and shrug. Blaming me IC would be ICly unreasonable. If a cabinet refuses to remove an absent/unpopular/ineffective leader then they must shoulder some IC responsibility for the continuation.

This adds a bit more depth to the politics and acts as a shield against leadership being unable to log in crippling a settlement's ability to act. It also allows a degree of OOC flexibility that a flat timer might not: I, personally would be less inclined to pull the trigger on such if someone was out of game due to illness or similar.

If a group OOC rallies round someone and refuses to oust, then there are at least IC political consequences to it in that people will know that you had the power to do something and elected not to.

[Rhavin76]

My thoughts is that a scripted intervention is not needed. Regarding settlements, they have a way of the playerbase sorting itself out.


Right after the election the new leader has a grace period, but after that first term (30 days? not sure) any citizen can start an election as i understand the mechanics. If the new leader was largly awol right off the bat without good reason it is highly unlikely he or she will get re-elected.

[Irongron]

Settlement leaders currently stand on behalf of a faction, and that faction leader has the power to replace them.

So vote for a powerful, reputable faction, and should a leader be doing a poor job, make sure to petition them for a replacement.

This is one of these areas where the tools are already provided, should players choose to use them.

[Dreams]

It's also one of those areas where ultimately people avoid using those tools in order to maintain full control. It's very easy to simply set up your own faction on the side, run, and employ people to support you. If a leader is set up this way, they may appear to be a big part of some other trusted faction, however have run in their own similarly named platform faction. They retain full control. If they're absent, there is very little that other players can do.

I'm hoping that whenever the term limits get put in place, it will be able to stop this sort of thing from happening.

At the very least it limits the amount of times someone can show up for an election, win, then dissappear until the next election.

[JustMonika]

Settlement leaders currently stand on behalf of a faction, and that faction leader has the power to replace them.

So vote for a powerful, reputable faction, and should a leader be doing a poor job, make sure to petition them for a replacement.

This is one of these areas where the tools are already provided, should players choose to use them.

I am not aware of a time where the leader of the faction and the settlement leader have been seperate. Is this really the case often based on your behind the scenes knowledge?

[Irongron]

I haven't been tracking it, certainly l knew beforehand leaders would simply set up their own faction so as not to have limits on their power, but I would suggest the voters think twice in these situations.

I'm also sadly yet to see a single faction holding power in more than one settlement - which would be quite an achievement.

[JustMonika]

I haven't been tracking it, certainly l knew beforehand leaders would simply set up their own faction so as not to have limits on their power, but I would suggest the voters think twice in these situations.

I'm also sadly yet to see a single faction holding power in more than one settlement - which would be quite an achievement.

The Voters have no way of seeing how the faction is mechanically set up, so they're not in a position to moderate or vote based on this information.

Worth also noting that if all factions are set up with the leaders running for office, there is also no other way to vote.

And there's no incentive for setting up a faction yourself to put another candidate up in your place to be seen as 'different'.

[Zavandar]

yeah I dont think many people are going to run under someone else's faction. that happened once in recent memory and it ended in a very public spectacle wherein there was a riot and an assassinated leader. great roleplay, mind, but a big lesson learned

as such, the systems currently in place don't really deal with absent leadership. you can win an election and be gone for a whole month before players can intervene mechanically

[JubJub]

The issue then is do you really want the server to decide what is considered active enough. I agree that a missing leader is frustrating, especially when they are never about and then run and win again. But if I log on 10 minutes a day does that mean I am actually doing anything or just logging on to log on. So do you really want the server and staff deciding if you're active enough? if someone doesn't want to do anything when they are a leader it won't change if they are simply forced to log on for a few minutes everyday so they can show they have been on.

[Zavandar]

well ideally there would be an option to remove them, whether they are inactive or "active"

it's the same principal as quarterlogging. I know a lot of people catch wind ooc of an eviction and just avoid those that can evict them by not logging on. But reporting those individuals has worked in the past. There's just not a precedent for it as far as settlement leadership goes

[monkeywithstick]

I think allowing a vote of no confidence within the rest of a "cabinet" as I outlined above is a viable means of adressing those issues. I imagine there are plenty of other potential solutions too though!

[Zavandar]

well as you said, deciding who counts for that is difficult

[JubJub]

Well a "council" if you mean an ig group, for example people heading different departments in Cordor are usually appointed by the chancellor and help them get elected, so are they ever likely to vote no confidence? Not to mention if they no confidence the chancellor and it triggers an election, they might all end up out of a job themselves. Or if the "council" can replace the chancellor and install a new leader, that pretty much ruins the point of an election. And if it's ooc then you have the dm's determining how much activity is enough to stay in power.

[Ebonstar]

another thing not mentioned, is not accounting for real life issues

the player may get sick, or have a change in work schedule that changes when he logs into the game

for example right now the player of the chancellor fell to both these occurances, but still managed to log in at a later than normal time to be seen.

now that doesnt allow much activity but before these votes of no confidence or other things mentioned happen, we have to remember that real life comes first over the game

just because during your normal play time you dont see a character, doesnt mean others do not when you might be sleeping or working or something else

[Ork]

I think it's best practice to resign if you suddenly don't have the time it takes to do leadership roles.

[Aelryn Bloodmoon]

I think it's best practice to resign if you suddenly don't have the time it takes to do leadership roles.

While I am generally in favor of this train of thought, some mitigation is possible, and possibly even advisable. Everyone gets sick sometimes, but in positions of power, the world doesn't stop turning just because you have a fever.

Delegation of powers and responsibilities (which involves a measure of trust both IC and OOC, and the latter is sometimes hard to come by) can go a great way towards ameliorating this - a decent settlement leader, in my mind, makes a list of responsibilities that need to be tended to for the city to function, and does their best to fulfill them, but as a form of oversight and delegation with assistance rendered where needed.

A great settlement leader will delegate enough responsibilities to the right people so that even if they aren't on for a week straight, business in the city will continue to run as usual, and a week later when they come back, they can get a summary report of what's been going on, advise as necessary, ask what they can do to help, and then disappear for another few days with no one distressed.

Usually this takes the form of sharing the keys to the city, as well as administrative powers over the city's factions. This does occasionally happen, but it's limited to time periods where goodwill and trust and sunshine fill the air, which tends to not to last overly long, in my experience.

[monkeywithstick]

Well a "council" if you mean an ig group, for example people heading different departments in Cordor are usually appointed by the chancellor and help them get elected, so are they ever likely to vote no confidence? Not to mention if they no confidence the chancellor and it triggers an election, they might all end up out of a job themselves. Or if the "council" can replace the chancellor and install a new leader, that pretty much ruins the point of an election. And if it's ooc then you have the dm's determining how much activity is enough to stay in power.

I think I mentioned this earlier. But I shall reiterate.
At present, as there is practically nothing that can be done IC, there are no consequences to rallying around the Chancellor. Because everyone knows that even if you wanted to do something, all you could actually do would be symbolic (resign) or overtly criminal (steal the treasury to force a new election).

I'm not suggesting that this wouldn't happen, merely that it happening would have IC consequences that might affect ongoing political careers for those involved. (As IG implied, there should be some incentive for PC's to pick a reliable well regarded faction. But at present, there are firstly few ways to ascertain the truth of a faction in that regard, and secondly it isn't going to happen anyway)

It adds political game, the Chancellor picks their firing squad and then has to keep them at least partially placated.

[The GrumpyCat]

Suggestion (And this may be a really dumb idea, please don't let the green on my name persuade anyone otherwise) what if there was a system where if a certain amount of citizens/certain percentage of the citizenry - with active voting rights - voted for 'no confidence' of a chancellor, elections would start again?

I think balencing it between making it a number that's reachable + making it so that people can't be 'griefed' out of the position, by just getting lots of newbes to make new characters and vote 'no confidence,' would be tough. But maybe it's an idea?

[JustMonika]

Suggestion (And this may be a really dumb idea, please don't let the green on my name persuade anyone otherwise) what if there was a system where if a certain amount of citizens/certain percentage of the citizenry - with active voting rights - voted for 'no confidence' of a chancellor, elections would start again?

I think balencing it between making it a number that's reachable + making it so that people can't be 'griefed' out of the position, by just getting lots of newbes to make new characters and vote 'no confidence,' would be tough. But maybe it's an idea?

A certain % of the elecorate [a more substantial % than required to actually elect them] would be good. Maybe like 60% [IE, a total majority?]
You'd just have to speak to the registar and be like, 'I wish to protest against the current government'.
Maybe this % could be publically available so the Chancellor/team would have an idea of his approval rating during the term, and when the % started to climb they could act to avert it?

[JubJub]

This is why there is no easy or simple solution. If it's made too easy then folks will keep using the system to "no confidence" out leaders until they get the one they want, making elections totally pointless. Also it could easily evolve from a tool for trying to get rid of a leader that is never around to simply trying to oust a leader anytime they do something a player doesn't like. Or a you outed my leader so now we will toss out your leader type of thing. If this is ever made it needs to be a tool of last resort and not a easy way to oust a leader simply because a person doesn't like the leader.

For approval rating. Other factors could increase/decrease approval rating stock levels, treasury level, if they don't belong to a city patron faith that could add to apporval rating etc, . The higher or lower an approval rating the harder or easier it would be to oust the government. I imagine this would be a scripting nightmare. Maybe any class that has special election talents maybe they also could have special approval rating talents. It would also force the opposition to rp trying to oust the government over a simple I don't like that guy. Since the was initially about absent leaders play time could be factored, so if you do have reason you might not be around much for a week you won't auto get tossed out but it still may have an impact on approval ratings.

[The GrumpyCat]

The main downside of using percentages, is that the proporition of people voting to the proportion of people as citizens is suprisingly low often.

cordor has over 200 citizens. Last election only about sixty odd voted.
50% of the electerate is more than often be bothered voting.
Further more - as I revisit the thought - the issue I think we have isn't so much unpopular leadership. Heck, unpopular leadership could be cool! It's ABSENT leadership, which is a slightly different kettle of fish.

[Party in the forest at midnight]

I liked Monkeywithastick's idea the best in that regard, where other members of government could do it. That would protect unpopular governments, but would also allow for players to do something if a government leader disappears.

But I also think that nothing needs to be done at all. I might be cynical but I think giving people the ability to remove a government would be more likely to be abused. With term limits of 3 months, if someone somehow wins 3 terms as chancellor while being mostly inactive, they're then out. It'll sort itself out eventually.

[Zavandar]

unpopular leadership is my favorite. it generates a lot of rp.

absent leadership does the opposite. it can and has crippled rp in settlements.

And I agree that there is a difficult metric to establish. A settlement leader can be on for 4 hours but behind a locked door, and another can be on for only 2 and be out there doing stuff in the public eye.

I think settlement leaders have an OOC obligation to generate some rp for the settlements they lead. I've seen a lot of people go for it just because they want the title, then do nothing with it. And that's even plausible from an IC sense; however, it's also very boring. Getting a notch on your belt and disappearing is Big Lame.

There has been a lot of talk about elections in general over the last year or so, with people logging in/making new characters just to vote for their OOC friend, and then other, wild accusations/conspiracies. It's a hot topic and I suppose that makes sense, given how real life politics go. I know that there has been a crackdown on people partaking in the aforementioned activities, and that's good. But Ebonstar highlights a big problem. He says that sometimes settlement leader players get busy, and that's fine, but your character doesn't know or care about that. I'm curious as to how these voting decisions are made IC, as that's basically voting for OOC reasons.

I hate to complain without offering solutions, but I dont really know one. The assassination system exists, sure, but there's already a thread about its shortcomings.

[Dreams]

Running on a similar line of thought:

- Require settlements to have at least 2 appointed underling PCs assigned to the leader. These can just be the same sort of administrative or delegative staff that many leaders already have.
- Underlings gain the ability to trigger an election after 7 RL days if the leader has not been online. You could automate this, but by having the underlings do it, it gives a bit of IC legitimacy.
- If underlings are not assigned within 7 RL days of a new leadership, elections are triggered.