Settlement Election Integrity

[MissEvelyn]

In certain recent elections, up to 34% of votes casted were eliminated from the final count because the characters which casted the votes had little to no roleplay leading up to the election. This is absolutely unacceptable, and those players will be sitting down with me for a chat in the coming days and weeks.

For everyone else, a reminder that the team expects a significant amount of roleplay to occur on a character before voting. Only characters currently active in a settlements roleplay should decide the future leadership of it. Infractions against this policy could range from warnings, to political bans or game bans. If you have any questions regarding this policy, please reach out to any member of the DM team.

I haven't partaken in the voting system for some time, but even I cannot ignore such a high number. Up to 34% of voted casted were not legitimate votes. That's a very large chunk of the total.

With an active "What does the Setting mean to you" thread going on, it begs the question: How did we get here? And what can we do to ensure fair* elections?

* "Fair" being fair for the players, not necessarily the characters.

[Bazelgeuse]

I feel like a good chunk of rule violations or exploits come from the "I MUST WIN!!!!!!" mentality.

Player wants to win, whether it's a PVP encounter or an election, or whatever. Sometimes they'll do whatever it takes, whether or not it's allowed, to win.

[Anomandaris]

I for one was disturbed by the 34% number, but sadly not too surprised. I like that you tied this to the setting integrity thread, because I think this voting issue is representative of a number of issues that range from clear rule breaks, to grey area activities, to technically permitted but nonetheless cringe and detrimental to server health. As stated, a lot of this stems from a must win mentality, which is going to be a reality regardless of what we do.

I understand the administrative load is insane here, and the team really has their hands full. I do think however that this is a particular area (enforcing setting integrity and continuity) that could really use a more consistent/involved/aggressive approach. Given that, I was super happy to hear someone ran the numbers and cracked down on the election issue.

At present, violating setting integrity isn't really a rule break. And frankly, I don't think it should be, because it's so vague. Not to mention, it's hard to discern intention. We also have a playerbase with varying levels of setting knowledge and RP experience, and there's a ton of source material. It would not be helpful to punish players making honest mistakes or simply "not RPing'' to some arbitrary standard.

That said, there are several GLARING issues on the server that have been rampant for years, and in my opinion far outstrip the importance of mechanical balance and other areas of focus given we should be a RP sever first and foremost (unless this goal has changed?). They are loosely as follows in my opinion:

1) Alignment & special race or class adherence:
This one is a doozy and a hard issue to tackle. There are certain aspects of it that can never be fixed. But egregious violations that are clearly driven by an OOC desire to get an edge mechanically or RP wise, need to be addressed. Here's two examples on opposite sides of the alignment spectrum that I feel degrade the server integrity.

• A paladin hanging out with their OOC Hemo/warlock buddy who uses canonically evil spells without any discretion.
• Shadovar betraying Thultanthar and/or Shar, yet retain access to the shadow weave, the shadovar tradepost etc.

2) OOC Election Fraud & Political Power Brokering:
OOC election fraud as addressed in the recent post is just the tip of the iceberg. Ever watch a new faction spring up and suddenly rise to power, granted RP cookies, titles, influence, power within an obscenely short period of time? It's not always the case, but I think we all know full well there are a lot of "legs up" happening due to OOC relationships rather than RP. This "gatekeeps" a lot of things from players unable or unwilling to play this OOC game, which can be discouraging and unfair.

3) Metagaming of Wiki Knowledge For Advantage:
Characters profess to know entirely too much, and oftentimes what they profess to know, is strategically selected to provide some special insight on another character or faction, that would otherwise need to be roleplayed. That could be Rakshasa related knowledge, Yuan-ti related knowledge, Shadovar related knowledge and so on. In the past we saw people testing mages' ability to cast "light" to see if they use the shadow weave, effectively metagaming spell lists. Today we see everyone somehow knowing that Shadovar use the shadow weave and worship shar. It's an ongoing issue that can cause real lasting impact on RP and character viability in certain settings.

I really hope Irongron and the team take a look at some of these issues and come up with "creative ways" beyond heavy handed OOC punishments to more effectively enforce the setting. To me the clear answer is IC punishments that range from debilitating to inconvenient (kind of like how MOD is sometimes used, but more options). Curious what others think...

[-XXX-]

One very viable solution would be to have your character come live on Sencliff - there are no elections there!

[Kythana]

That number doesn't surprise me at all. And this is the instance where something like this has been reported, and investigated.

There are many players who act in completely bad faith in order to gain a competitive advantage, but unlike this instance, they're just better at hiding it.

I feel like a good chunk of rule violations or exploits come from the "I MUST WIN!!!!!!" mentality.

To add onto this, it's also, no surprise, why there a good portion of players who have this mindset.

"Losing" on Arelith in the terms of losing pvp, or losing an election often results in just outright denial to participate. It can be extremely unfun for those parties. There's so much emphasis of mechanical knowledge and power that it naturally attracts the kind of player that wants to be good at both.

OOC election fraud as addressed in the recent post is just the tip of the iceberg. Ever watch a new faction spring up and suddenly rise to power, granted RP cookies, titles, influence, power within an obscenely short period of time? It's not always the case, but I think we all know full well there are a lot of "legs up" happening due to OOC relationships rather than RP. This "gatekeeps" a lot of things from players unable or unwilling to play this OOC game, which can be discouraging and unfair.

Yep. Roll up a group of 5, have one of them be an assassin, and you can take over the settlement, and keep a vicegrip over it! At least until another OOC faction comes along.

[chris a gogo]

Im abit unclear on what is expected of a player to allow them to vote.

a reminder that the team expects a significant amount of roleplay to occur on a character before voting

Does this mean I have to role play with characters that are taking part in the election or that I can role play with different characters not involved in the election?

It is far to vague and honestly if my character has paid the 10k fee and I am playing them as I do in a casual fashion due to having a demanding life in real life, does this mean I can't vote for a character that seems to represent my characters best interests, or has paid for there vote?

Disclaimer to be clear.
I do not vote on alts even if they are members of different cities just with the character I have been playing as main.

[Drogo Gyslain]

Does this mean I have to role play with characters that are taking part in the election or that I can role play with different characters not involved in the election?

As far as I am aware, there has always been the expectation that any character participating in the election must be actively played. Nothing's been said that you can't have seperate characters voting in different settlements, just you can't join the same faction as an alt, and you can't lead multiple settlements. (Same player couldn't play Thane of Brog & Chancellor of Cordor, for instance).

What defines 'actively' played versus 'inactive' i don't think has been spelled out by the dms, but I could take a reasonable guess and say that if you don't log in at least once a week and do more than check a house or shop shield and refresh the property, there's a good chance that you're not an 'active' character and there may scrutiny to your vote.

If you want to put a number to it, it's hard. Because with amazing players like Amadeo or Merry, who are legendary, Mythic characters, a once a week interaction and a few sentences could resonate far and wide with people, and their impacts far exceed their counterparts appearances. Other characters, you could see them sitting, talking in cordor for weeks on the benches and still not even know they exist because they do nothing but sit on the bench.

Trying to develop an 'activity benchmark' would be near impossible without giving in to some argument about how much time or how many speech bubles did you create being brought into account.

But being realistic on the subject, if your character doesn't participate in the day to day activities of the isle, you're probably not going to be an informed voter.

Some form of consistency needs to be observed. If you're someone without alt-itis who takes 2-3 week breaks frequently and just comes in to punch a vote, that's always a signal that... ooc, you were told a vote was happening and to come help.

On that same token, even if you're an 'active player' but you haven't played -that character- for 3 weeks and you log back in just to vote, then that's also going to get scrutinized, because then it looks like you're just keeping tabs on the situation on other characters, and you've now meta'd that information to the alt making the vote.

[Diegovog]

There could be a different type of tag for characters who do that:

-If they are in the surface, they lose voting, housing, citizenship rights in any settlement.
-If they are UDer, they lose all of that in the UD and also portal rights to the hub and similar portals.

Forever.

[Drogo Gyslain]

There could be a different type of tag for characters who do that:

-If they are in the surface, they lose voting, housing, citizenship rights in any settlement.
-If they are UDer, they lose all of that in the UD and also portal rights to the hub and similar portals.

Forever.

could always institute an in-game prison system for violators for offenses like this.

they can still role play and log in, but they would be restricted in remanded to a prison cell or a prison map.

I know it would never happen, but it's an interesting idea nonetheless

[DM Herald]

To clarify on the point of activity here...the team expects the character that is casting a vote to be active in roleplay leading up to the election. That is to say, if the character is just silently grinding and AFKing in game, that is not counted as roleplay activity. Roleplay activity means engaging with others. Someone who does not engage with the settlement community should not have a say in its future.

[silverpheonix]

How hard is it to not log in with a 5 month shelved PC just to vote for your buddy or against your enemy?

Do better, people.

[Amateur Hour]

How hard is it to not log in with a 5 month shelved PC just to vote for your buddy or against your enemy?

Do better, people.

This is how I think people's mindset must work. I'm not saying this to excuse what they do, but to help people do some self-examination:

• Option 1: you start playing a character in a settlement. You like the way it's going, but you've got other stuff going on, an alt catches your attention, etc. so you don't play it so much. That's your ol' reliable character. Then you hear: election! The election could upend everything you were doing and make it much harder to periodically come back to that character, so you log in to vote for the representative of continuation.

• Option 2: you start playing a character in a settlement. You hate it. Everything seems to be the worst decision ever. You can't stand it, you don't have the energy to change it yourself, so you just don't play the character. You'd like to, but you don't feel you can. Then you hear: election! The election could finally get the Old Guard out, so you log in to vote.

I think a lot of it comes from a mentality of being a little too attached to a particular trajectory for our characters in abstentia to be able to let things happen to them. In these players' heads, the characters' stories have been continuing in the settlement off-screen, but we have to stay in the mentality of "nothing happens on Arelith unless it's roleplayed out."

[silverpheonix]

How hard is it to not log in with a 5 month shelved PC just to vote for your buddy or against your enemy?

Do better, people.

This is how I think people's mindset must work. I'm not saying this to excuse what they do, but to help people do some self-examination:

• Option 1: you start playing a character in a settlement. You like the way it's going, but you've got other stuff going on, an alt catches your attention, etc. so you don't play it so much. That's your ol' reliable character. Then you hear: election! The election could upend everything you were doing and make it much harder to periodically come back to that character, so you log in to vote for the representative of continuation.

• Option 2: you start playing a character in a settlement. You hate it. Everything seems to be the worst decision ever. You can't stand it, you don't have the energy to change it yourself, so you just don't play the character. You'd like to, but you don't feel you can. Then you hear: election! The election could finally get the Old Guard out, so you log in to vote.

I think a lot of it comes from a mentality of being a little too attached to a particular trajectory for our characters in abstentia to be able to let things happen to them. In these players' heads, the characters' stories have been continuing in the settlement off-screen, but we have to stay in the mentality of "nothing happens on Arelith unless it's roleplayed out."

I like this viewpoint a lot better than what I posted.

[Dreams]

To clarify on the point of activity here...the team expects the character that is casting a vote to be active in roleplay leading up to the election. That is to say, if the character is just silently grinding and AFKing in game, that is not counted as roleplay activity. Roleplay activity means engaging with others. Someone who does not engage with the settlement community should not have a say in its future.

But this doesn't seem to apply to people who roleplay actively (not ever in the settlement) and then go vote in their chosen settlement?

[DM Herald]

The team's concern, first and foremost, is character activity. If a character hasn't been actively roleplaying at all leading up to an election, then the character shouldn't vote. If a character is spending more time roleplaying in a settlement which they are not citizen of, then the character should potentially consider switching their citizenship. For example, a character who is a citizen of Cordor, but does all of their active roleplay in Guldorand should really just switch their citizenship over to Guldorand.

[BattleDrake]

How does this apply to Harpers and Zhents, who have the ability to vote anywhere?

[The GrumpyCat]

The team's concern, first and foremost, is character activity. If a character hasn't been actively roleplaying at all leading up to an election, then the character shouldn't vote. If a character is spending more time roleplaying in a settlement which they are not citizen of, then the character should potentially consider switching their citizenship. For example, a character who is a citizen of Cordor, but does all of their active roleplay in Guldorand should really just switch their citizenship over to Guldorand.

I'd argue even this is situational though.

E.g. Robin of Loxley, rightful Sheriff of Guldorand is cast out in elections by the evil Guy of Gisborn (Which were manipulated of course by King Jon of Cordor). Robin doesn't go into Guld much now - being pariahed, but he does roleplay a lot about the situation, calling for aid for the opressed Guld and it's high taxes in Myon, Bendir and Brogendenstein, even going into Cordor to call for aid to build a group of people willing to work there where he cannot! To free the poor, opressed people!

To me - even though he's not actually /In/ Guldorand, Robin has every right to try and gather votes there.

I suppose really this comes down to 'If you're not involved in a settlment, in any way shape or form, if your roleplay (or lack of it) shows absolutly 0 interest in any way on the leadership of a settlement... don't... vote in it? But if it does (whether you spend lots of time there, or perhaps you're a harper/zhent who wants to meddle) then by all means.

[Subtext]

So will that rule be applied to characters who are citizens but wholly uninvolved, directly or indirectly?
Or does it still apply only to cryopod voters?

[D4wN]

The team's concern, first and foremost, is character activity. If a character hasn't been actively roleplaying at all leading up to an election, then the character shouldn't vote. If a character is spending more time roleplaying in a settlement which they are not citizen of, then the character should potentially consider switching their citizenship. For example, a character who is a citizen of Cordor, but does all of their active roleplay in Guldorand should really just switch their citizenship over to Guldorand.

I'd argue even this is situational though.

E.g. Robin of Loxley, rightful Sheriff of Guldorand is cast out in elections by the evil Guy of Gisborn (Which were manipulated of course by King Jon of Cordor). Robin doesn't go into Guld much now - being pariahed, but he does roleplay a lot about the situation, calling for aid for the opressed Guld and it's high taxes in Myon, Bendir and Brogendenstein, even going into Cordor to call for aid to build a group of people willing to work there where he cannot! To free the poor, opressed people!

To me - even though he's not actually /In/ Guldorand, Robin has every right to try and gather votes there.

I suppose really this comes down to 'If you're not involved in a settlment, in any way shape or form, if your roleplay (or lack of it) shows absolutly 0 interest in any way on the leadership of a settlement... don't... vote in it? But if it does (whether you spend lots of time there, or perhaps you're a harper/zhent who wants to meddle) then by all means.

To me this comes down to a lot of similar type of issues that I do not understand myself.

Why does someone vote in a settlement they are not roleplaying about or in? Why does a person own a large/rare/or any home (or ship) in a settlement when they're never there or even actively play? Why do people who rarely or never play own a shop?

Resources like homes and shops are so rare, that I personally find it very selfish and inconsiderate of people to sit on them and just refresh or log in once every 1-2 weeks to do 30-60 minutes of RP then not return again until it's time to refresh again. I think it's weird people would want to vote in a settlement when they're not involved with its RP or don't play the character because you're impacting something relevant to many active players that could change things for them while it doesn't affect you because you'll just go back to doing your thing outside of said settlement.

I'm genuinely curious to understand why people do this.

[Dreams]

Cordor in particular seems to have issues with this. There are a bunch of important properties marked as civil/infrastructure buildings so can be passed around between groups rather than distributed by the bidding system. It’s frustrating to see places owned for RL years where they’re not always active, and then just handed off to the next person in the group who will keep them for just as long.

A lot of people begin as citizens but then can’t find property or have to go to other places to do so. That’s usually why you have people who are citizens of Cordor, own a shop in Guldorand and have a quarter in Sibayad.

[chris a gogo]

Unread post by DM Herald » 14 Mar 2024 04:33

The team's concern, first and foremost, is character activity. If a character hasn't been actively roleplaying at all leading up to an election, then the character shouldn't vote. If a character is spending more time roleplaying in a settlement which they are not citizen of, then the character should potentially consider switching their citizenship. For example, a character who is a citizen of Cordor, but does all of their active roleplay in Guldorand should really just switch their citizenship over to Guldorand.

That sounds like an opinion rather than a punishable rule.

I ask because my necromancer is a citizen of Cordor but when I was playing them I spent the bulk of my time role playing in a different area (not the UD) due to not agreeing with various laws that players had passed, strangely not the anti necromancy laws, anyway after watching some meta gaming and the slaughtering of a low level warlock for having fey summons, I decided to do most of my role playing in a different location.
Which I personally think should be fine and that my character should of been(not now as im not playing them) allowed to vote against those that were enforcing the laws and systems that caused my character to leave.
Or am I wrong?

[Ruzuke]

The team's concern, first and foremost, is character activity. If a character hasn't been actively roleplaying at all leading up to an election, then the character shouldn't vote. If a character is spending more time roleplaying in a settlement which they are not citizen of, then the character should potentially consider switching their citizenship. For example, a character who is a citizen of Cordor, but does all of their active roleplay in Guldorand should really just switch their citizenship over to Guldorand.

I'd argue even this is situational though.

E.g. Robin of Loxley, rightful Sheriff of Guldorand is cast out in elections by the evil Guy of Gisborn (Which were manipulated of course by King Jon of Cordor). Robin doesn't go into Guld much now - being pariahed, but he does roleplay a lot about the situation, calling for aid for the opressed Guld and it's high taxes in Myon, Bendir and Brogendenstein, even going into Cordor to call for aid to build a group of people willing to work there where he cannot! To free the poor, opressed people!

To me - even though he's not actually /In/ Guldorand, Robin has every right to try and gather votes there.

I suppose really this comes down to 'If you're not involved in a settlment, in any way shape or form, if your roleplay (or lack of it) shows absolutly 0 interest in any way on the leadership of a settlement... don't... vote in it? But if it does (whether you spend lots of time there, or perhaps you're a harper/zhent who wants to meddle) then by all means.

I treat my RP politics as I do my real world politics.

I do not alienate people at my job, community with a lot of discussions which at best is going to have a side way look at me, cause people to avoid me, or remove me an issue. I do however quietly vote for change (except for employee assessments which can and will be used against people.)

My characters may like the population or several people of a settlement but not how the leadership runs things. None of my characters will ever stand up and challenge things. It is not worth it at worst those in power can evict and harass via IC means. So my characters avoid. Like my real life self, they don't talk politics the defenders will shut them down of how they are wrong and brand them as a nuisance. When election time comes much like in the real world people vote showing their displeasure.

A good real game example is one character I had which was slightly political half of the active PCs that they interacted with from three different settlements ICly warned don't speak up it is not worth it, just going to get punished. Quit and move. Perhaps Brogenstien supports the sort of RP you are speaking of. Cordor and Myon do not. Undercities might result in getting killed for talking back against the powers.

[LurkingShadow]

Speaking of Election Integrity. I think the whole ordeal with assassinations removing a candidate fully, totally ignoring the fact they might elect an ruling council or have a "vice insert title" to be there if they die, is fully ignored. That is a flaw which is OOC driven and not IC at all.

Someone can die 10 times in a day, in a dungeon or failed PvP raids and nothing happens. But someone comes up with the "special, unique dagger" and stabs them and its over.

Also, the cooldown for elections is to short. Guldorand already has a new election going. With such a short time ,IC and OOC, will this motivate people to do anything long term at all? If there might be new leaders as soon as the cooldown is over along with, in my opinion, flawed assassination system.

That is also an integrity issue in my opinion.

[Cthuletta]

Unread post by DM Herald » 14 Mar 2024 04:33

The team's concern, first and foremost, is character activity. If a character hasn't been actively roleplaying at all leading up to an election, then the character shouldn't vote. If a character is spending more time roleplaying in a settlement which they are not citizen of, then the character should potentially consider switching their citizenship. For example, a character who is a citizen of Cordor, but does all of their active roleplay in Guldorand should really just switch their citizenship over to Guldorand.

That sounds like an opinion rather than a punishable rule.

I ask because my necromancer is a citizen of Cordor but when I was playing them I spent the bulk of my time role playing in a different area (not the UD) due to not agreeing with various laws that players had passed, strangely not the anti necromancy laws, anyway after watching some meta gaming and the slaughtering of a low level warlock for having fey summons, I decided to do most of my role playing in a different location.
Which I personally think should be fine and that my character should of been(not now as im not playing them) allowed to vote against those that were enforcing the laws and systems that caused my character to leave.
Or am I wrong?

I think the point is more-so that those kinds of changes more actively effect those who are already active in any one settlement, who are putting in time and effort towards them.
Just as an extreme example, say Cordor had a Chancellor candidate who proposed to 'Make animation legal! Undead skellies for everyone!', and they managed to win because a bunch of people who completely avoided Cordor and it's politics due to being animators came in to vote, that's not very fair to those who agreed with the 'Animation is bad, mmkay' law and spent their time in Cordor regularly. Rather than, say, a secret animator who's been hiding in Cordor for a while, trying to subtly get their desired changes done.

I really do see the concern of 'My character avoided X place, and voting to change what I didn't like so I can actively be there again' being a valid one, as Amateur Hour more eloquently pointed out, buuut there are also those who didn't like X thing who also actively try to RP those changes out over time. It's a hollow victory for them, and a bit of a disheartening struggle for those who 'lose' against what was prior an invisible opponent.

This last bit is more of a personal experience, just something I've personally seen happen with characters, and even my own in the past, but there are also those times where you come in around an election, vote, the person you wanted to win, wins, but then suddenly-! On the horizon! It's a bird! No, it's a plane! NO!... It's burn out. And you shelf. If you were inactive in that settlement beforehand, vote to get the changes you want, and then shelf right after, that's gonna put a strain on the Leadership since the voter-base is meant to be fairly reliable afterwards. Especially since anyone can call an election not-that-long after the last one.
Not saying it's wrong to shelf for any reason what-so-ever, of course, just that's it's more likely to happen when you were inactive right before you voted, or it's at least perceived that way.

This is all coming from someone who can't reliably play an alt to save their life, so I'm also not the sort who'd log into my drow once in a blue moon to vote in an Andunor election either, no matter if the proposed RP changes appealed to me or not. My view might be quite different because of that, just to keep in mind.

[D4wN]

Speaking of Election Integrity. I think the whole ordeal with assassinations removing a candidate fully, totally ignoring the fact they might elect an ruling council or have a "vice insert title" to be there if they die, is fully ignored. That is a flaw which is OOC driven and not IC at all.

Someone can die 10 times in a day, in a dungeon or failed PvP raids and nothing happens. But someone comes up with the "special, unique dagger" and stabs them and its over.

Also, the cooldown for elections is to short. Guldorand already has a new election going. With such a short time ,IC and OOC, will this motivate people to do anything long term at all? If there might be new leaders as soon as the cooldown is over along with, in my opinion, flawed assassination system.

That is also an integrity issue in my opinion.

I agree to both your points.