Arelith

i feel like guld has a lot of potential and that although we've seen issues consistent across a few administrations now, they also haven't really done much to break the mold to begin with. i'll reiterate that guld's only left the hands of its usual circle once, and guld was the busiest it had been in a while (and imo has been since) during that period. i can't really speak as to what they did differently, though, aside from let in factions/people that were otherwise shunned.

and that this has nothing to do w/ the charter/council

Ork wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 9:26 pm I do find it fairly interesting that the same people playing in Guld have only once been deposed of leadership since its release. Time to move on, I'd wager.

Oh, way more than that.

The general sort of core group, across a few generations of characters, has had control over Guldorand for going on some 60-80 IG years now (so, approximately 6-7 RL years) and I can only remember a single time where Guldorand has passed outside the control of that general group - and that's the time that both you and Zavandar are talking about, and that didn't even last a full election term, lol. The generation of that group that currently forms the core/backbone of Guldorand's gov't have, largely, been there for about 40-50 IG years (approx. 4 RL years.)

Flower Power wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:44 pm

Ork wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 9:26 pm I do find it fairly interesting that the same people playing in Guld have only once been deposed of leadership since its release. Time to move on, I'd wager.

Oh, way more than that.

The general sort of core group, across a few generations of characters, has had control over Guldorand for going on some 60-80 IG years now (so, approximately 6-7 RL years) and I can only remember a single time where Guldorand has passed outside the control of that general group - and that's the time that both you and Zavandar are talking about, and that didn't even last a full election term, lol. The generation of that group that currently forms the core/backbone of Guldorand's gov't have, largely, been there for about 40-50 IG years (approx. 4 RL years.)

Yeah, DMs should enforce a strict interpretation of the "Be Nice" rule being that there is nothing nice about holding settlement leadership for over 2 RL years.

Flower Power wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 11:44 pm

Ork wrote: Sun Aug 08, 2021 9:26 pm I do find it fairly interesting that the same people playing in Guld have only once been deposed of leadership since its release. Time to move on, I'd wager.

Oh, way more than that.

The general sort of core group, across a few generations of characters, has had control over Guldorand for going on some 60-80 IG years now (so, approximately 6-7 RL years) and I can only remember a single time where Guldorand has passed outside the control of that general group - and that's the time that both you and Zavandar are talking about, and that didn't even last a full election term, lol. The generation of that group that currently forms the core/backbone of Guldorand's gov't have, largely, been there for about 40-50 IG years (approx. 4 RL years.)

I know you might be referring to me, but I joined the server on Itzal in... February? With no ties or former connections to the aforementioned 'old guard', and by May he became High Sheriff. How his term went is up for debate, but I did try to make an effort to not be a copy/paste leader as the previous ones.

Okay, ya'll conspiracy theorists need to calm down a bit. I've been the only person to consistently have a character in Guldorand leadership for the last several RL years. The Goodmans have been around for a couple years, and Derristan's been around a while. That's been it for the characters, and there haven't been players recycling in to play in Guld on a different character, certainly not in any sort of power position either.

I've known most of them in an OOC fashion on Discord or some other fashion, and there's been dozens of players going through the Guldorand government in the last several years, at least since Alice. Ezekiel came back under a couple characters, but none of them have been any higher than sergeants.

It's just been me, and Angela holds an advisory position at best at any given point, for the specific and express purpose of allowing for a change of the old for the new, and to have no power to get in it's way.

Creating the idea that people need to be removed just because they're perceived to have been around for too long by other players can lead to OOC motivated metagaming based off of false information.

triaddraykin wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:57 am Creating the idea that people need to be removed just because they're perceived to have been around for too long by other players can lead to OOC motivated metagaming based off of false information.

Good post, and a legit thanks for clearing things up here.

triaddraykin wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:57 am Okay, ya'll conspiracy theorists need to calm down a bit. I've been the only person to consistently have a character in Guldorand leadership for the last several RL years. The Goodmans have been around for a couple years, and Derristan's been around a while. That's been it for the characters, and there haven't been players recycling in to play in Guld on a different character, certainly not in any sort of power position either.

I've known most of them in an OOC fashion on Discord or some other fashion, and there's been dozens of players going through the Guldorand government in the last several years, at least since Alice. Ezekiel came back under a couple characters, but none of them have been any higher than sergeants.

It's just been me, and Angela holds an advisory position at best at any given point, for the specific and express purpose of allowing for a change of the old for the new, and to have no power to get in it's way.

Creating the idea that people need to be removed just because they're perceived to have been around for too long by other players can lead to OOC motivated metagaming based off of false information.

So what you're saying is... many characters in Guldorand have been around for a while, with many more being "recycled" alts of the same players? No horse in this race, but that seems to confirm the "conspiracy theories" if anything.

Marsi wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 1:53 am

triaddraykin wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:57 am Okay, ya'll conspiracy theorists need to calm down a bit. I've been the only person to consistently have a character in Guldorand leadership for the last several RL years. The Goodmans have been around for a couple years, and Derristan's been around a while. That's been it for the characters, and there haven't been players recycling in to play in Guld on a different character, certainly not in any sort of power position either.

I've known most of them in an OOC fashion on Discord or some other fashion, and there's been dozens of players going through the Guldorand government in the last several years, at least since Alice. Ezekiel came back under a couple characters, but none of them have been any higher than sergeants.

It's just been me, and Angela holds an advisory position at best at any given point, for the specific and express purpose of allowing for a change of the old for the new, and to have no power to get in it's way.

Creating the idea that people need to be removed just because they're perceived to have been around for too long by other players can lead to OOC motivated metagaming based off of false information.

So what you're saying is... many characters in Guldorand have been around for a while, with many more being "recycled" alts of the same players? No horse in this race, but that seems to confirm the "conspiracy theories" if anything.

I don't know how you got that out of what I posted, but I'll be more explicit to dispel any confusion: With the exception of Ezekiel's player, who has created a few characters that have never gone above a guardsman after he was Mayor, players have not playing multiple characters in Guldorand's government in the time I've been there, since about 2017 or so.

I know this because I have almost always ended up in common OOC communication with them for one reason or another, typically because I myself have played a single character that ends up in an advisory position to help that government. Because of that, I'm in a position to know if it's been the same players playing the dozens of characters that have filtered in through the Guldorand government since Alice's day, and I can tell you with personally gained knowledge that no players have been creating new characters and entering into Guldorand's government and controlling it once again.

There have been a few long-lived characters like Samantha Goodman, Dora Goodman, Derristan Barley, and Angela Amana, but they were not recycled characters from players who where creating a new one just to take control again under a new character.

Calling out other players for what seems to be your impression of "not good enough" while simultaneously praising yourself beyond any reasonable expectations seems to be both exceptionally unkind and very self-centered.

xrippling pepression wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:13 am Calling out other players for what seems to be your impression of "not good enough" while simultaneously praising yourself beyond any reasonable expectations seems to be both exceptionally unkind and very self-centered.

Was that in reply to my post?

triaddraykin wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:15 am

xrippling pepression wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 2:13 am Calling out other players for what seems to be your impression of "not good enough" while simultaneously praising yourself beyond any reasonable expectations seems to be both exceptionally unkind and very self-centered.

Was that in reply to my post?

Yes.

I don't understand how you got that impression. If you'd like, send me a PM on it? I don't want to clutter up the forum thread, but I truly don't see how you reached that conclusion.

Cordor feels like a bustling big city of opportunities.
Guldorand feels like a stiffled Westcliff town disguised as a big city.

Is this the founder's council's fault? Is it forcing two completely different governments to live together? Maybe the players ruling it not adapting to the new city? The lack of new groups bringing in an exciting new concept?

I have no idea, but Guldorand doesn't feel fun.

If we're going to talk about it let's talk about it. Guldorand utilizes connections through their private discord to embolden "faction favored" candidates without acknowledging or ignoring alternative "not faction favorite" candidates. This was made plain when a government was reshuffled due to a sudden departure in leadership due to a rule break.

Similarities exist in bendir where if you are not tight with the clique, you won't be allowed to pursue government or settlement leadership roles. While this is probably fine once and awhile, this has happened in Guldorand for a long time.

Obviously this post isn't typical forum material, but I do think we need to have honest conversations about our settlements and the stiffling control of year-long hegemonies on this server.

For the record, I was a part of Guldorand leadership during Rannos era some what 7+ years ago. The discord was inherited by Alice's player to then be inherited by Ezekiel's who has been operating it since. That's a long time.

I think it's unfair to pick on the old Guld characters exclusively. With the Guld/Myon conflict my character has found them to be some of the best people to work with, they seem to be the most willing to try and get the conflict to stop. I enjoyed RPing with them.

Edit: This is in reply to Angela's post. The names listed as "old Guld" players have been pretty good to RP with. There are issues, but I'm not sure if it's the same players causing things to happen now as it was 4 years ago.

I don't want to deny there are issues- There's a lot of frustration that has been boiling for a long time that the new city is igniting. But I want to acknowledge people who have been good to RP with in this as well.

Ork wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 3:15 am Obviously this post isn't typical forum material, but I do think we need to have honest conversations about our settlements and the stiffling control of year-long hegemonies on this server.

Not to be dismissive, or belligerent.

But more or less every NWN PW I have ever been on, with roles of consequence for PCs, in the powers that be structures, is this way.

Rather bluntly, DM interaction with players follows a Pareto distribution (despite no matter how denied it is) toward a minority with most and a majority with far less, if any DM interaction or focus. Those with that majority focus, and they are not all old guard, will always be overwhelmingly likely not be favoritism in a sense of unearned, or unreasonable accolade, be recognized more, engaged with more, and thus have as players across many characters more opportunities in Arelith (or any other PW server). Just how things are.

It makes sense, DMs are people to, and this is a leisurely activity for them to, and they should be with regards to much given the same freedom of association we all would like to have in such activities. I'm not gonna blame the DMs for my character in three years only having five or so interactions. Just like I am not gonna blame the various in character factions and cliques mine has never been able to fit in with for that either. Sucks to spend the majority of IC time solo when not making small talk RP somewhere. But that is just how it has to go if you believe in freedom of association, even when it has some rather negative perceived consequences, like perceptions of favoritism. Because even though I've gotten infinitesimal IC focus in three years, I can still say that the DMs and those player factions and cliques do make Arelith much more immersive and a better place by existing, than if those folk went off somewhere else entirely.

Hey Guys, please don't call out specific players in feedback. Complaints about player behavior should go to DMs, lest threads have back and forth squabbling, which a few posts here do and have also pushed the conversation away from the original feedback. This leads to things like a lock.

Seven Sons of Sin wrote: Mon Aug 09, 2021 12:04 am Yeah, DMs should enforce a strict interpretation of the "Be Nice" rule being that there is nothing nice about holding settlement leadership for over 2 RL years.

Elections are the narrative tool that can be used to change leadership. If the players playing there don't want to challenge the leader, it can naturally run long and it's really in player power to change that.

That said, I do discourage players from overly long terms and knowing when to pass on the baton to the next generation. Long leadership by the same person/faction can be a risk to cause staleness. But ultimately, elections are really the narrative tool to push something new in. But if players are actively discouraging people from running/changing the status quo, then we will step in on grounds of be nice.