Feedback on Election Shennanigans

[Cortex]

It should be limited to one vote per CD key and physical player, no matter the settlement, here's why:

For the sake of examples and not pointing fingers at anyone, I'll be using dumb fake names.

Sunday Clique has players both in Autumn Village and Summer Town. Sunday Clique doesn't like the IC group Bladeboys. Bladeboys try electing their guy in Autumn Village, but Sunday Clique has characters and OOC support to vote them out. Bladeboys instead try getting their guy elected in Summer Town, but again, Sunday Clique doesn't want that, and gets their OOC web to vote them out.

None of those characters need to be inactive (and thus vulnerable to the new ruling) for the above to occur, only people of the same clique that play characters in both settlements, in a very nepotistic and inbred situation.

We should ban the living daylights out of Sunday Clique. I don't know how this can be quantified as anything but a significant breach in the "Be Nice" rule.

Irongron's recent zero tolerance of a certain activity is because of how damaging it is an OOC level. Not to draw false parallels (but I'm going to, and be hyperbolic), but this kind of behaviour has long long been one of the most toxic and damaging from an in-character perspective.

Because I'd bet you money there's a significant overlap between election shenanigans and "second life" styles of play and "anti-conflict/PvP" sentiment.

It gets me riled up like nothing else.

In my example, there can be an oddity that can occur in the "technalities" of the rules, whereas different characters from the same players can dislike Bladeboys, and do the minimum RP necessary to warrant voting against them. It's not "as bad" as logging on to only to vote, but it's still pretty bad.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

Im not super keen aboit non qaurter people auto getting 32 storage but I think the principle of rje idea has really good merit. Qaurters are still useful for stuff like group storage, pooling resources etc. beyond just personal storage. Increasing personal storage would not completely remove need of auxillary storage and the use of qaurters soley for said purpose (Adundor actaully has vaults, qaurters literally for storage purposes only) but it definitely would free a few things up. Shops on the other hand, that's a hard one to come by. But now I am getting way off topic. These storage ideas would be more relevant if 1 vote per player was a thing.

I would never bother voting with a character I am not actaully playing, but I am actaully not bothered by "nobodies" voting if it's their only voting character vs someone having multiple legit rp voting characters in the same region. The latter feels weirder to me. That being said, I completely understand not wanting non existing characters to be voting

[Griefmaker]

Citizenship storage is a great incentive to be a citizen. There is not really much reason for someone to be a citizen without a good carrot.

There could definitely be more carrots, but at the moment that is really the only one besides being able to vote for someone which often does not really mean anything to those who vote anyway.

[xanrael]

I do support changes that reduce OOC collusion. That said oftentimes it seems like there is little reason for a voter to care who is in power past eviction worries.

It would be nice if there was something that a candidate could campaign for that would actually interest a voter. The piety change was a very small step in the right direction IMO. A poor* example would be an option for writmasters to offer more gold per writ or have more plants per plot of fertile land such that they're inversely proportional, where the more you boost one the lower the other goes. There is now a meaningful choice that people are divided on. The established herbalist character would have a different priority than the fresh off the boat smith character and by design you cannot please both.

I think if you provide meaningful choices that split the populace it starts mattering more who is in power and more people will place their votes and make actually IC campaigning for votes have importance.

* There are a lot of holes in this example, I'm merely trying to illustrate my point. Arguing over the specifics of the example would be kind of silly IMO.

[Dreams]

I think the more simple act of restricting to 1 vote per 1 player per 1 IG year would be enough to solve many settlement system issues.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

I think the more simple act of restricting to 1 vote per 1 player per 1 IG year would be enough to solve many settlement system issues.

Except when same district has 4 elections in a row due to assassinations etc. Thisnnist brings up so many new problems/meta tactics like baiting everyone to waste votes on first few elections, etc.

[Nitro]

I think the more simple act of restricting to 1 vote per 1 player per 1 IG year would be enough to solve many settlement system issues.

Except when same district has 4 elections in a row due to assassinations etc. Thisnnist brings up so many new problems/meta tactics like baiting everyone to waste votes on first few elections, etc.

Then tie the voting cooldown for a player to the voting cycle of the last settlement they voted in. So they can't vote elsewhere until they would be able to vote in their current settlement again, either through triggering of a new vote via abdication/assassination or the one year cooldown between challenges.

[Reallylongunneededplayername]

Eh, All that programming..

Just do a random suprise check on elections and find all those "Log in to vote folk" then go into their vault, Pick their most played character and cut 50% of their lvl and empty its bank account.

Should solve it, Right?

[CptJonas]

Well...I dont get it...
Why is problem that players who barely play have chance to vote?
Why is problem that chance to vote have even people who dont care?
Its only realistic...in RL there is also like 70% of people who vote, just to vote withow any knowlege or care

[Kuma]

Well...I dont get it...
Why is problem that players who barely play have chance to vote?
Why is problem that chance to vote have even people who dont care?
Its only realistic...in RL there is also like 70% of people who vote, just to vote withow any knowlege or care

Realism doesn't mean it's healthy for the server. As in real life, you're left with stagnancy.