Feedback on Election Shennanigans

[theCountofMonteCristo]

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.

I agree. And I think it needs to be a deliberate choice by the player. Make two classes of citizens: One that gets access to bank storage and other perks, and one that can vote. We can call it aristocracy, or full citizen, or something. Or the other can be resident. You can only change your choice every x period of time (longer than 1 election cycle at very least!).

[Seven Sons of Sin]

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.

[Mr_Rieper]

For the purposes of this thread, could we define what we all think a "clique" is?

Is it a group of people that communicate OOC and whose characters share a goal? Or is a group of players who conspire out of game and whose characters all plot to achieve some plan?

(I'm also pleased about the end of vote brigading with alt characters. It was starting to become a bit of an arms race, none of which was IC.)

[Sea Shanties]

I'd be really careful with the punitive measures. You don't want a legit casual player who just wants to be a part of things accused of pulling a scam because they made the mistake of voting with only 5 hours played that week or something. There are a lot of reasons someone might vote on an alt or lesser-played character (the definition of which is very much a grey area) and they don't always involve scheming on Dischord.

Limiting voting in the first place is a much better option (1 vote per CD key per RL month or whatever sounds great) than putting people on the defensive.

[MissEvelyn]

I don't think the punishment for this kind of behaviour is strict enough, even with irongron's suggestions of stripping players access to settlement systems.

I think they should be given temporary bans.

This is some of the worst type of behaviour you can have in Arelith. Some people point to trolls, PvP-junkies, etc., but really, some of the most awful types of players are the entrenched, impregnable cliques that believe fundamentally they deserve to be in charge.

Forcing these people who behave in this kind of revolting behaviour should be forced to take a little vacation *in addition* to not being able to interact with settlement systems.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I've entirely given up on politics RP due to cliques happening (and me refusing to be a part of them). It'd be nice to get back in the near future and not return to a clique, OOC-driven environment.

[BobTheSkull]

I think we can all agree that exploitation if the election system is a serious problem.

TL:DR;

"Suggestion:
1) Add a script that triggers each time you a PC enters a faction/settlement. Similar to quarter script. With a triggering event 1/week requirement for entrance 8 weeks out of the last 12 weeks to maintain citizenship.

2) Add a faction controlled raw resource tax for maintaining citizenship. Controlled from same menu as resource donation pricing. Valued at total gold value compared with resource valuation. This is calculated quarterly (3 months) and you must have met the prior quarters resources tax quota to maintain active citizenship to be able to vote. This will allow each faction self atonomy in policing activity of citizens as well as encouraging proactive contribution towards faction growth projects."

Full report:

I think we can all agree that the consequences if this exploitation should not be hours on hours of tedious log combing for DMs and Devs. That only doubles down on the cost to the respectful players who lose fair elections AND lose access to available DM time, events, or those unknowning times we get to RP with DMs player side.

I think we can all agree that faction RP lives and dies with leadership. Good leaders invigorate and build RP for their faction members. Good leadership is hard work, very hard work. And not all are up to it. Some lack the effort, motivation, skill, or simply the time. I would hope we can all agree that when you find an energized and engaged faction, there is a rockstar, dedicated, leader at it's center that we are all drawn towards.

Term limits will help remove leaders that have no place in being there, who are elected by fraud not by the active faction. But they will also remove good leaders. Leaders that lift their factions up, and lift other players up, bringing out and motivating the best RP in them. They are rare, and some factions may be blessed enough to have, simultaneously, too "good" leaders at one time, with the skill, energy, time, motivation, and experience to grow the factions RP, but most do not.

The issue is exploitation, namely, non active participant in a faction. So let's find a solution that targets that problem.

Suggestion:
1) Add a script that triggers each time you a PC enters a faction/settlement. Similar to quarter script. With a triggering event 1/week requirement for entrance 8 weeks out of the last 12 weeks to maintain citizenship.

2) Add a faction controlled raw resource tax for maintaining citizenship. Controlled from same menu as resource donation pricing. Valued at total gold value compared with resource valuation. This is calculated quarterly (3 months) and you must have met the prior quarters resources tax quota to maintain active citizenship to be able to vote. This will allow each faction self atonomy in policing activity of citizens as well as encouraging proactive contribution towards faction growth projects.

I believe that these two suggestions, implemented together, will deter abuse, while proactively empowering factions to higher self autonomy and policing.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

Suggestion:
1) Add a script that triggers each time you a PC enters a faction/settlement. Similar to quarter script. With a triggering event 1/week requirement for entrance 8 weeks out of the last 12 weeks to maintain citizenship.

2) Add a faction controlled raw resource tax for maintaining citizenship. Controlled from same menu as resource donation pricing. Valued at total gold value compared with resource valuation. This is calculated quarterly (3 months) and you must have met the prior quarters resources tax quota to maintain active citizenship to be able to vote. This will allow each faction self atonomy in policing activity of citizens as well as encouraging proactive contribution towards faction growth projects.

Is this suggestion purely for voting power or citizenship period? Im not losing 10k buy in and my storage because i was gone on vacation or just little time to play. I sometimes don't get 5 hrs in a single week or two. Yet i was the one who informed someone who won and they didn't even know (after elections got fixed) because i actaully walk around and check up on my home, etc. Even with what little time I have. Hence my question of your suggestion.

[Hazard]

I'm getting the sense that in this thread there's two very different expectations of which groups these proposed changes will likely be stopping.

.. But whoever is contaminating their IC with OOC stuff, should be stopped.

Not sure term limits would work, it will either force instability in a system that is already very difficult to keep stable or it will just be played around, like Putin and Medvedev.

[Mr_Rieper]

The settlement system is part of the fun of Arelith. If people were to consider the server as a microcosm of RL, with all of its social issues, fundamentals and truths shining through at times, it makes the server an interesting place to experiment with certain ideas.

Which is why it bothers me that we're moving closer and closer from a roughly democratic vote system to a much harder, stricter democratic system. The term limits thing does not sit well with me. In my mind, it brings up the idea of some sort of presidency. Yes, I understand the logic behind it, but it's still an awkward thing when it's decided by the server and not by the settlement. Why does a good leader have to step down? Is it the settlement's laws that leaders cannot rule beyond a certain length of time? No, it's the hand of god that intervenes and relieves them of the burden of leadership.

Preventing abuse is important, but we're so focused on the cases of exploiters and cheaters that it has some pretty serious implications for RP in the long run. Would it not be possible to experiment with different political systems instead? Possibly one where challenging the leadership of a settlement doesn't involve calling an election, but something much subtler? How about a lack of term limits for noble characters?

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that democracy is the cleanest, most efficient system on the server where the politics are still so young and underdeveloped.

As for the calling in of OOC voters, again, I'm glad that this is being dealt with.

[Hazard]

The settlement system is part of the fun of Arelith. If people were to consider the server as a microcosm of RL, with all of its social issues, fundamentals and truths shining through at times, it makes the server an interesting place to experiment with certain ideas.

Which is why it bothers me that we're moving closer and closer from a roughly democratic vote system to a much harder, stricter democratic system. The term limits thing does not sit well with me. In my mind, it brings up the idea of some sort of presidency. Yes, I understand the logic behind it, but it's still an awkward thing when it's decided by the server and not by the settlement. Why does a good leader have to step down? Is it the settlement's laws that leaders cannot rule beyond a certain length of time? No, it's the hand of god that intervenes and relieves them of the burden of leadership.

Preventing abuse is important, but we're so focused on the cases of exploiters and cheaters that it has some pretty serious implications for RP in the long run. Would it not be possible to experiment with different political systems instead? Possibly one where challenging the leadership of a settlement doesn't involve calling an election, but something much subtler? How about a lack of term limits for noble characters?

I'm uncomfortable with the idea that democracy is the cleanest, most efficient system on the server where the politics are still so young and underdeveloped.

As for the calling in of OOC voters, again, I'm glad that this is being dealt with.

I think that's a really nice way of putting it and I feel similarly.

Would love to see different types of government systems for different settlements.
Maybe something tied to their racial/cultural identity?

[Yma23]

I don't mind the idea of some sort of automated 'check' on voters before elections, but I'd hope that whatever it is, the DMs do not advertise what that check is, or maybe even that it exists. If they did I bet you'd just get people standing in a corner saying 'bibble' fifty times. Or logging in, then going afk for eight hours one day just to make sure you hit the 'time limit' to be eligable for voting. If it existed it should remain covert and secret to avoid factions abusing it.

I like the fixed terms though, as I think it gives more people a chance at the 'wheel' of voting. More players a chance to rp being a leader, and more chance at interesting charcters, interesting events, and chaos occuring.'

Some people are arguign that set terms are not 'realistic.' and I sort of agree, in a way I don't suppose they are. But I think introducing them makes for better game, better story, and more fun.

If we're talking about ralistic, it's not 'realistic' that ressurection and respawning work so well, that people come back from the dead so easily. But if I were to suggest we increase realism on the server by making everyone a 1life MOD people would scream. Why? Because even if it's realistic, it's -terrible gameplay-.

Maybe adding these terms is not 100% the most realistic ever. But I believe it adds to the joy and the experience of the server.

[Borin Drakkmurl]

I...am not certain where the confusion seems to be in some angles of this discussion.

A lot of us have seen this happen way too many times:

* City A has a call for elections. People who play constantly and regularly and put in the effort to roleplay in and through City A cast their votes.

Then, out of nowhere, popping up like fungus, characters that no one has ever seen before, or have not been seen in many real life months or sometimes years, show up to vote, even though they have had no participation what so ever in that settlement's life.*

The technical term for that is, I believe: bullshit. And as someone has said before, it should be a ban worthy offense, because it is nothing but metagamy, play to win, masturbatory, discord inbred idiocy.

Another thing to keep in mind:

Other than whatever mechanical tools get implemented to help track this crap, report this stuff to the DMs as much as possible. It is easier to deal with detrimental players and cliques when there is a clear pattern of evidence to follow, rather than just hear say.

EDIT:

I just reread my post. Perhaps that was a bit too agressive. But maybe it should be.

Also, to adress the whole settlement system as a whole. When it was first implemented, I thought it was a great thing. And I still recognise its usefulness, but quickly, and more so with time, I have become less and less of a fan. Solely because it has turned leadership largely into a numbers game, rather than a result of merit and work.

Anyone who remembers the times before the settlement system remembers that, though things were far from perfect, things still got done. Change still happened. Cliques still existed, as well as morons willing to cheat, but at least there wasn't an actual thing to exploit.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

I...am not certain where the confusion seems to be in some angles of this discussion.

A lot of us have seen this happen way too many times:

* City A has a call for elections. People who play constantly and regularly and put in the effort to roleplay in and through City A cast their votes.

Then, out of nowhere, popping up like fungus, characters that no one has ever seen before, or have not been seen in many real life months or sometimes years, show up to vote, even though they have had no participation what so ever in that settlement's life.*

The technical term for that is, I believe: bullshit. And as someone has said before, it should be a ban worthy offense, because it is nothing but metagamy, play to win, masturbatory, discord inbred idiocy.

Another thing to keep in mind:

Other than whatever mechanical tools get implemented to help track this crap, report this stuff to the DMs as much as possible. It is easier to deal with detrimental players and cliques when there is a clear pattern of evidence to follow, rather than just hear say.

EDIT:

I just reread my post. Perhaps that was a bit too agressive. But maybe it should be.

Also, to adress the whole settlement system as a whole. When it was first implemented, I thought it was a great thing. And I still recognise its usefulness, but quickly, and more so with time, I have become less and less of a fan. Solely because it has turned leadership largely into a numbers game, rather than a result of merit and work.

Anyone who remembers the times before the settlement system remembers that, though things were far from perfect, things still got done. Change still happened. Cliques still existed, as well as morons willing to cheat, but at least there wasn't an actual thing to exploit.

I wish it was clear cut as that. Im not sure the ones that won are instead now were any less or more cliqueish. The side that has now been fixed is definitely a more active group IG but they dont use discord any less, and i had not seen any siggns of involvement from said faction in area i am settled in prior to election where the one that won and got removed I actaully had interactions with. I admit this new faction is more active and will probably bring more life, but the community at large seems to be over reacting to stuff they were not even part of thinking its just a bunch of wankers needing to get banned.

[Borin Drakkmurl]

I...am not certain where the confusion seems to be in some angles of this discussion.

A lot of us have seen this happen way too many times:

* City A has a call for elections. People who play constantly and regularly and put in the effort to roleplay in and through City A cast their votes.

Then, out of nowhere, popping up like fungus, characters that no one has ever seen before, or have not been seen in many real life months or sometimes years, show up to vote, even though they have had no participation what so ever in that settlement's life.*

The technical term for that is, I believe: bullshit. And as someone has said before, it should be a ban worthy offense, because it is nothing but metagamy, play to win, masturbatory, discord inbred idiocy.

Another thing to keep in mind:

Other than whatever mechanical tools get implemented to help track this crap, report this stuff to the DMs as much as possible. It is easier to deal with detrimental players and cliques when there is a clear pattern of evidence to follow, rather than just hear say.

EDIT:

I just reread my post. Perhaps that was a bit too agressive. But maybe it should be.

Also, to adress the whole settlement system as a whole. When it was first implemented, I thought it was a great thing. And I still recognise its usefulness, but quickly, and more so with time, I have become less and less of a fan. Solely because it has turned leadership largely into a numbers game, rather than a result of merit and work.

Anyone who remembers the times before the settlement system remembers that, though things were far from perfect, things still got done. Change still happened. Cliques still existed, as well as morons willing to cheat, but at least there wasn't an actual thing to exploit.

I wish it was clear cut as that. Im not sure the ones that won are instead now were any less or more cliqueish. The side that has now been fixed is definitely a more active group IG but they dont use discord any less, and i had not seen any siggns of involvement from said faction in area i am settled in prior to election where the one that won and got removed I actaully had interactions with. I admit this new faction is more active and will probably bring more life, but the community at large seems to be over reacting to stuff they were not even part of thinking its just a bunch of wankers needing to get banned.

I have no idea nor knowledge of the specific event you are refering to.

And not to be rude to you or dismissive, but it does not matter, because it is clear cut:

Dont log in with innactive characters just to cast a vote for an ooc friend. End of story.

[DM Atropos]

Everything Borin has said, aggressive or not, is spot on.

Very little, shy of outright tell spam harassment, makes me angrier than faked elections. I have seen So. MANY. Of. Them DM side and they have taken place in LITERALLY every settlement since I came to the Team. At least once. Most of them, repeatedly.

Players don't have to like this change, and to be frank, I wish it weren't necessary. I get why it's not people's favourite. I wish people could learn to Let Go, and to lose with grace. Until that happens, however, there needs to be something to, quite frankly, stop people being butt-heads.

Too often, people forget this is a multiplayer game. They forget their story is not as important to anyone else as it is to them, and they forget that others' fun is just as important as theirs. I have been guilty of it. Nearly every player has, at one point or another. It's a huge roadblock and one that, if it can't be overcome by the player's desire toward inclusivity and community, necessitates mechanical enforcement, unfortunately.

We'll always listen to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, be it here or in PMs or on discord. But do remember that this is in response to very real, very current issues.

[Subutai]

We'll always listen to CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, be it here or in PMs or on discord. But do remember that this is in response to very real, very current issues.

I'm concerned about a couple things with this, and I want to be as honest as possible, so if I provide some context to my thoughts on certain things, I hope it won't come across as being disrespectful or angry. I absolutely don't intend either.

My biggest concern with this change is transparency. From horse riding, to DM guidelines, to lots of little rule declarations here and there, I feel that Arelith's staff tends towards a policy of much more opacity than I would like.

In the case of fraudulent elections, it's been something I've seen come up quite a few times. I've seen complaints on numerous occasions that, while the DM team claims to investigate them and take action (and for the record, I believe you do investigate and take action), many players who suspect election tampering never see the outcome of that.

As mechanical changes like term limits, or theoretical ones like limiting the how often players can vote or which settlements they can vote in, are certain to negatively impact rule-abiding players as well as the rule breakers, could these changes be balanced out with an increase in transparency when election fraud occurs?

I would never suggest publishing names of people responsible, but I think a lot of players would appreciate more updates, even if no action was taken, or even if the changes didn't matter. "The election of Sunshine City was called into question. We found several votes from characters who didn't roleplay their characters in the past month, but seemed to only log in to vote. These votes were removed. However, this did not change the outcome of the election, and the original winner still had enough legitimate votes to win the election."

I think something like that would go a long way towards helping players feel like the election problems were being consistently addressed. I don't disbelieve the DM team when they say the election shenanigans are dealt with, but I do understand that some players feel that way, and in the face of what they might feel is too much opacity into the subject, I can understand their hesitation, especially those who have had trouble with DMs in the past, whether on Arelith or elsewhere.

[Ork]

I don't think that's ultimately necessary, Subutai. Report what you believe might be a rigged election, and leave it. You can find the evidence of when DMs intercede in game more times than not.

[DM Atropos]

To put it clearly, if you report it and nothing visibly changes, it's because if what you reported was accurate, (and in all reality, sometimes it's just not, whether it's you not knowing the full extent of RP, or someone just assuming bad faith of others, or rumour or whatever) it was likely not enough to have caused a recall (which we can, have, and will do if the situation merits it).

F'rinstance. You report Joe Bob II has scads of No-RP votes or votes gotten through discord. Your friends told you this, and you suddenly see new people about heading to vote.

I will then go through, look at who voted, and check each person's RP surrounding their vote, unless it's a case wherein I happened to see the RP going on either topside or in passing playerside (because if I'm involved playerside directly, I don't handle the investigation. That's policy.)

I find out that Joe, who won the election by 6 votes, had 2 votes that look shady/have no RP/whatever.

Those 2 votes aren't enough to change the election. So it would probably stand, unless you gave me a ton of evidence that it shouldn't, because it's also hard for us to know if Joe actually conspired to do this or if people decided for whatever reason to do it on their own.

Those 2 voters get talked to, and sometimes get docked/banned/what have you. But of course, we're not going to broadcast this, and they probably aren't in a hurry to either.

So in the end, yes. It can absolutely look like nothing happened when in fact plenty did, we just follow policy which is not to disclose punishments. Until *that rule changes*, worrying about when different things will happen really only stresses you out unnecessarily.

For things like rules clarifications, ask. There are times, like the PG-13 ruling, where we will not, ever, spell out precisely what it means, because it encompasses so much, and is so subjective, that we can't, and to try would be opening the door to rules lawyers who loooove "the letter of the law" while not caring so much for the spirit of it. But hardline things? Ask. "Is X metsgaming? Is it against the rules to __________?"

Just ask.

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I...am not certain where the confusion seems to be in some angles of this discussion.

A lot of us have seen this happen way too many times:

* City A has a call for elections. People who play constantly and regularly and put in the effort to roleplay in and through City A cast their votes.

Then, out of nowhere, popping up like fungus, characters that no one has ever seen before, or have not been seen in many real life months or sometimes years, show up to vote, even though they have had no participation what so ever in that settlement's life.*

The technical term for that is, I believe: bullshit. And as someone has said before, it should be a ban worthy offense, because it is nothing but metagamy, play to win, masturbatory, discord inbred idiocy.

Another thing to keep in mind:

Other than whatever mechanical tools get implemented to help track this crap, report this stuff to the DMs as much as possible. It is easier to deal with detrimental players and cliques when there is a clear pattern of evidence to follow, rather than just hear say.

EDIT:

I just reread my post. Perhaps that was a bit too agressive. But maybe it should be.

Also, to adress the whole settlement system as a whole. When it was first implemented, I thought it was a great thing. And I still recognise its usefulness, but quickly, and more so with time, I have become less and less of a fan. Solely because it has turned leadership largely into a numbers game, rather than a result of merit and work.

Anyone who remembers the times before the settlement system remembers that, though things were far from perfect, things still got done. Change still happened. Cliques still existed, as well as morons willing to cheat, but at least there wasn't an actual thing to exploit.

We're allowed to get aggressive. Nothing about this is impolite. Shitty behaviour should be met with anger.

I still fundamentally believe the settlement system is inherently problematic, for multiple reasons. It has long been another system to 'game', and it really needs to be so fulproof, when it can be so deterministic in the success or failure of characters.

[Yma23]

Of course I'm no fan of ooc discord collusion for In Game events. But that said I have much less of a problem with people doing such with active and constnatly rped characters- characters who would likley know about such events and do what they do anyway - than I do with people just voting with little to no rp or reason for it, beyond keeping their ooc clique in hand.

[BobTheSkull]

Suggestion:
1) Add a script that triggers each time you a PC enters a faction/settlement. Similar to quarter script. With a triggering event 1/week requirement for entrance 8 weeks out of the last 12 weeks to maintain citizenship.

2) Add a faction controlled raw resource tax for maintaining citizenship. Controlled from same menu as resource donation pricing. Valued at total gold value compared with resource valuation. This is calculated quarterly (3 months) and you must have met the prior quarters resources tax quota to maintain active citizenship to be able to vote. This will allow each faction self atonomy in policing activity of citizens as well as encouraging proactive contribution towards faction growth projects.

Is this suggestion purely for voting power or citizenship period? Im not losing 10k buy in and my storage because i was gone on vacation or just little time to play. I sometimes don't get 5 hrs in a single week or two. Yet i was the one who informed someone who won and they didn't even know (after elections got fixed) because i actaully walk around and check up on my home, etc. Even with what little time I have. Hence my question of your suggestion.

My personal thought would be to have three citizenship status: non citizen, citizen, inactive citizen. Inactive citizens occur when either of the two suggested events above trigger. This prevents them from voting. I see little reason to limit storage from this as there is no draw back to other players RP by having bank storage. Once the above criteria are met, then they are converted to "citizen". The change from "inactive citizen" to "citizen" would not require a new payment of $10k.

The goal is to focus on RP and if you haven't participated the minimum of the check over the last 3 months then why should you be allowed to run for election or vote? This is a RP game, let's RP!

[Sea Shanties]

Honestly, why not just separate storage entirely? Let anyone store 12 items in the banking system for a buy-in or monthly rent. Right now if you're a pirate, citizen of Greyport etc you're screwed on settlement storage anyway so it's not a system evenly applied. It would also keep people from being nominal citizens just to have a chest for alts to keep stuff.

[malcolm_mountainslayer]

Honestly, why not just separate storage entirely? Let anyone store 12 items in the banking system for a buy-in or monthly rent. Right now if you're a pirate, citizen of Greyport etc you're screwed on settlement storage anyway so it's not a system evenly applied. It would also keep people from being nominal citizens just to have a chest for alts to keep stuff.

Assuming the devs were wanting embrace 1 cd key 1 vote, I think this idea is good and makes sense. Arelith has always preferred open principles than close/restricted rules/legalism.

[Subutai]

Honestly, why not just separate storage entirely? Let anyone store 12 items in the banking system for a buy-in or monthly rent. Right now if you're a pirate, citizen of Greyport etc you're screwed on settlement storage anyway so it's not a system evenly applied. It would also keep people from being nominal citizens just to have a chest for alts to keep stuff.

Hard agree on this. I'd also really love to see the storage capacity increased for characters who don't own quarters. If a character owns a quarter, 12 items in the bank is fine. If they don't own a quarter, make it 20, or even 32.

Alternatively, give everyone 32 slots, and then set the quarter chests to access their bank vault, so they can access it from their quarter.

One thing that I see pretty frequently is characters that seem to just sit on quarters because they need storage for their shop, or just because their character has so many things that they can't keep them on their person all the time. Even if they don't use the quarter, or even if they don't play the character, they hold onto the quarter for storage. I don't blame the players for this. Inventory space is easy to fill up, and if your character crafts a lot, they probably fill up their storage very quickly as well.

If storage space wasn't so tied to quarters, I think this behavior would be much less common.

[Ork]

Thats..some really good ideas about chests. I love both of those.