Arelith

1. Would be a bad idea (the part of never regaining citizenship) , all it takes is a leader to appear that doesn't like you, toss an exile on you and you are stuck with that city forever (lets not forget not that long ago Cordor was up to almost 14 exiles). If those people were Cordor citizens then they would forever be forced to stay citizen in a town that had them exiled.


4. Considering how bad some leaders have been, it doesn't seem like harpers are having that much of an impact. Not that long ago there was a leader with some well known ties to the UD, and he stayed in power, My guess is that's not a person the harpers would want to keep in power. Harper votes might of had a big impact when places like Guld or Bendir had 20 people. But now when Guld has 120 people, those few harper votes don't mean a lot.

6. I have always thought voting should be 1 vote per cd key total, not one vote per settlement and keep the change settlements and have to wait an ig year to vote. Make people pick witch settlement to support. Hardly seen people shouldn't get as much of a say in a town they aren't around a lot for when others are actively rping being there in the town.


Stop the if you are running as a candidate and you're killed then you get removed as a candidate. This is way too easy to be cheesy about. Or at least have it start an election over. Ohh I can't win an election, ok lets wait till most have voted and then kill the other guy, ohh look I win.

Being killed does not remove you from running. Being *assassinated*, by a guild assassin, while you have an active bounty, does. If you get a bounty and you don't work to remove it? Well, then. You have no one to blame for it but yourself.

One Harper vote has been enough, in the past, to swing *major* elections, so thinking their few numbers doesn't matter is just not correct. While Guldorand may have 120 citizens, there are not 120 *active* citizens. Many of those simply will not vote, and may not vote for the incumbent mayor regardless. You can't assume by numbers that they will all trend one way, they simply won't, in any settlement. Also, if they acted toward that UD-supporter, perhaps there's a reason why. You can't discount RP you are not present for, and do not know about, out of hand. A character you think is a UD supporter may not be, or the alternative may be objectively worse, or perhaps the Harpers are corrupt, or the stakes are so low they simply don't care. There are a myriad of reasons for them not to act, if indeed they did not.

Point six, I agree with.

Point one, I agree with.

Babylon System is the Vampire wrote: Sat May 04, 2019 8:52 am
2) Start the election cycle a few days before the voting starts. Debates, campaigning, stuff like this is fun to do but completely irrelevant currently. Most votes apparently happen in the first 24 hours of the cycle, so once it triggers people tend to just decide. A smart mind would actually trigger it without anyone knowing it was time giving themselves a nice jump on the competition since they are the only person running. While I can certainly commend the political savviness of this move, it does seem unrealistic in the grand scheme of things.

A player can start an election cycle whenever they want. What's stopping them?

At any point while 1) You're not on voting cooldown. 2) You're a citizen. 3) The settlement isn't having an election/currently has the ability to call an election. You can sign up to be AUTOMATICALLY included in the next called election, as long as your citizenship status doesn't change.

This also removed any advantage calling a surprise election gives. Don't want to be out of the running, in the first 24 hours? Just sign up early. And you can sign up for the next election as soon as the one going on finishes.

Morderon wrote: Sat May 04, 2019 3:44 pm

Babylon System is the Vampire wrote: Sat May 04, 2019 8:52 am
2) Start the election cycle a few days before the voting starts. Debates, campaigning, stuff like this is fun to do but completely irrelevant currently. Most votes apparently happen in the first 24 hours of the cycle, so once it triggers people tend to just decide. A smart mind would actually trigger it without anyone knowing it was time giving themselves a nice jump on the competition since they are the only person running. While I can certainly commend the political savviness of this move, it does seem unrealistic in the grand scheme of things.

A player can start an election cycle whenever they want. What's stopping them?

This is a regular occurrence in Cordor. Less so in smaller settlements where one leader typically rules for a very long time. Usually at least a few days before people know voting will open, everyone starts campaigning.

Yeah but there's no reason they have to wait to start campaigning until then.


Even if they fear exile, as long as they signed up ahead of time, their name will still be placed into leadership candidate list when someone calls an election, regardless if it's 1 month or 10 years.

I feel like we should just use verbiage like "gathering support", "raising the banners", or "collecting confidence" than 'campaigning.'

Small vernacular impacts perception.

Just as an aside.

Don't share that on the forums.

Seven Sons of Sin wrote: Sat May 04, 2019 4:51 pm I feel like we should just use verbiage like "gathering support", "raising the banners", or "collecting confidence" than 'campaigning.'

Small vernacular impacts perception.

Just as an aside.

This.

Try to keep the modern (Americanisms) political terms out of Arelith. If you use them, they exist without a context. Look up the etymology behind the modern words, use their historical versions instead.

Let's take a look at the word "campaign".
early 17th century (denoting a tract of open country): from French campagne ‘open country’, via Italian from late Latin campania, from campus ‘level ground’ (see camp1). The change in sense arose from an army's practice of ‘taking the field’ (i.e. moving from a fortress or town to open country) at the onset of summer.

Nothing to do with politics, really - everything to do with armies. We have the opportunity to make our own homegrown contexts, words and meanings while roleplaying. It's truly an awful thing when anachronistic or overly modern ideas get deeply entrenched into the server's culture and it's something we should always try to be aware of.

Dreams wrote: Sat May 04, 2019 11:33 pm Don't share that on the forums.

Don't shadow moderate. If I want to talk about my own character I'll say whatever I want. If you have a problem, deal with it ic. I've never even so much as assigned a gender to any of the other harpers I've spoken of, ic or ooc.

Aelryn Bloodmoon wrote: Sun May 05, 2019 12:35 am

Dreams wrote: Sat May 04, 2019 11:33 pm Don't share that on the forums.

Don't shadow moderate. If I want to talk about my own character I'll say whatever I want. If you have a problem, deal with it ic. I've never even so much as assigned a gender to any of the other harpers I've spoken of, ic or ooc.

You shouldn't have to be told by a moderator or DM to not spread IC information on an OOC public forum, particularly if it is current information or about a secret organisation like the Harpers.

dreams is the op and at this point you're derailing his thread

Zavandar wrote: Sun May 05, 2019 5:34 am dreams is the op and at this point you're derailing his thread

...

Alright, my bad. He's the OP, you're right, I'll see myself out.

Babylon System is the Vampire wrote: Sat May 04, 2019 8:52 am Points, 1) to 6). See above in the thread.

1) I'm all for free citizenship and automatically giving it. Probably should have some sort of attachement to quarters ownership too. Not being able to switch citizenship back and forth is a bad change in my opinion. I hate this kind of global punishment to players that are genuinly having their character evolving depending if they follow one settlement's line of thinking or not, just because a few players are using it to exploit.

2) I agree. Regarding the comment that was made later in the thread, yes, you can RP gathering votes earlier, but it would be nice to have a mechanical support, rather than just a rush on election day. It's just a little poke to people, you know ? Might help catch people in the thing.

3) Disagree. Not enough players playing in these to have something to do.

4) Disagree, on the same consideration than 1). Don't punish all for a few mistakes. However there are problems with this, that have to be settled.

5) I tend to agree with that one, I feel terms are too short, but I'm really not sure there.

6) Agreed, I don't feel the need to comment further.

Just so this is clear, none of my suggestions were about punishing anyone or suggesting anyone was doing anything wrong. If I was playing poker and the dealer kept sending me pocket aces I would play those cards no matter how unfair everyone at the table might think it is. That's sort of how I view the harper's ability to vote in any election. They should be trying to influence everyone, and meddling in elections. But they should also have to roleplay it out, and be persuasive to be successful, not just be dealt the winning hand every time.

Babylon System is the Vampire wrote: Tue May 07, 2019 12:54 am Just so this is clear, none of my suggestions were about punishing anyone or suggesting anyone was doing anything wrong. If I was playing poker and the dealer kept sending me pocket aces I would play those cards no matter how unfair everyone at the table might think it is. That's sort of how I view the harper's ability to vote in any election. They should be trying to influence everyone, and meddling in elections. But they should also have to roleplay it out, and be persuasive to be successful, not just be dealt the winning hand every time.

I didn't want to imply you meant it as a punishment, sorry.
I see what you mean for harpers, although I'm uncertain about the idea yet.