Arelith

I saw the announcement post and my first thought was "34% of what?", but I suppose it's a pretty big number as long as its 50+ votes cast, even if 17 is a lot less shocking than 34, or 50 votes that needed to be removed.

Anyways, this has an easy solution. 1 citizenship per cd key at a time, lower the cost of becoming a citizen by half so folks who like to switch back and forth between characters (20 years, I still don't get it but i guess i don't have to) are only paying 5000 coins, and switch citizen bank storage to a fee you pay to the settlement that doesn't require you to be a citizen, but still only allows you to do it one settlement at a time.

There are other things that are completely unnecessary to fix what the immediate is but could enhance the overall system as well. Things like dividing settlements into three (maaaaybe 4) nations on the surface to make the voting block bigger and have a flex vote from the npcs based on how the dms perceive the actions of the current leader would be received. You could even go full on wonk and divide that flex vote into three categories, the wealthy, the poor, and the military class, but now I'm letting my imagination get into the weeds.

Also, I think frowning on the guy who logs in as a casual, beats up some dungeons, and has a citizenship in Cordor voting in Cordorian elections is the wrong perspective. You don't want to disincentivize engagement for players who rarely engage. I get the problem you are trying to solve, but this is creating a much bigger one in the sense that now only those who have fun engaging with the settlement as is will be considered viable voters, creating a monopoly on said area in short order. The onus should be on the want to be elected officials to reach out to those people, not the reverse, and get their votes. And to help with that, I actually think an active list of citizens being available (the extent of who has access can be customized) is another good idea.

You're welcome Arelith.

I’d suggest limiting votes to 1 per CD key in any given period rather than limiting citizenship, which has other benefits unrelated to voting. I do think the idea of only having 1 character who can impact voting somewhere is important. Otherwise you end up with people who have alts in different locations and can just jump on, be active for a few days whenever there’s an election, and then vote.

Dreams wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 4:38 pm

I’d suggest limiting votes to 1 per CD key in any given period rather than limiting citizenship, which has other benefits unrelated to voting. I do think the idea of only having 1 character who can impact voting somewhere is important. Otherwise you end up with people who have alts in different locations and can just jump on, be active for a few days whenever there’s an election, and then vote.

The only thing i could think of was storage for alts, which is why I separated them. What did I miss?

edit: I'm asking because I'm assuming it's easier to limit the citizenship then the votes.

LurkingShadow wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 1:21 pm

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.

Make non-assassination deaths apply a cumulative malus to the NPC vote roll.

guldorand elections were triggered by specific circumstances, that is not a reflection on election timers

i think the way they have it that you need a certain amount of activity as well as being a citizen of a settlement for X amount of time is, the best way of going about it actually.

D4wN wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:44 pm

LurkingShadow wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 1:21 pm

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.

I think its an issue! Good to see there is some agreement to it. I know usually its a system that many seem to like.

silverpheonix wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 6:36 pm

LurkingShadow wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 1:21 pm

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.

Make non-assassination deaths apply a cumulative malus to the NPC vote roll.

That would be rough also. But I see your point. Perhaps with a tweak?

In Sorrow We Trust wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 7:27 pm

guldorand elections were triggered by specific circumstances, that is not a reflection on election timers

I have not seen any specific circumstances. Someone announced calling for an election, someone did when the cooldown was out.

LurkingShadow wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 8:14 pm

D4wN wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:44 pm

LurkingShadow wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 1:21 pm

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.

I think its an issue! Good to see there is some agreement to it. I know usually its a system that many seem to like.

silverpheonix wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 6:36 pm

LurkingShadow wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 1:21 pm

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.

Make non-assassination deaths apply a cumulative malus to the NPC vote roll.

That would be rough also. But I see your point. Perhaps with a tweak?

It's a max of 1d3 votes. I don't think it's that rough, no? Granted I agree there shouldn't be an infinite malus potential.

silverpheonix wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 8:45 pm

LurkingShadow wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 8:14 pm

D4wN wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 2:44 pm

I agree to both your points.

I think its an issue! Good to see there is some agreement to it. I know usually its a system that many seem to like.

silverpheonix wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 6:36 pm

Make non-assassination deaths apply a cumulative malus to the NPC vote roll.

That would be rough also. But I see your point. Perhaps with a tweak?

It's a max of 1d3 votes. I don't think it's that rough, no? Granted I agree there shouldn't be an infinite malus potential.

It would be a bit special for sure. Might cause a bit of crazy PvP situations possibly?

In Sorrow We Trust wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 7:27 pm

guldorand elections were triggered by specific circumstances, that is not a reflection on election timers

True only for one of the three elections the city has had since January.

Roughly:

• elections started late January, on eligible timer
• elections started again mid February, approximately two weeks after the conclusion of the first set, due to disappearance of the previously elected sheriff
• elections started yesterday, on eligible timer

Currently elections have a 4.5ish day length, and a 28 day cooldown. I won’t opine at present whether the period should be shorter or longer, but by this time Monday, Guldorand will have spent 13.5 days of the last 40 or so holding elections. And only one of those was a special circumstances election.

how does that compare to other settlements? is that just a guldorand thing

Saying you have to be politically active in a settlement to vote doesn't acknowledge how easy it is to be frozen out of a settlements politics or simply not see a way to get involved yourself.

I would hope that if an active character is inspired by the change an election would bring they would be allowed to vote (and not get in trouble for voting) even if they gave up on the current politics going on there and were laying low or spending time elsewhere. Especially if they do get involved in the RP during and after the election.

Spriggan Bride wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:31 am

Saying you have to be politically active in a settlement to vote discounts how easy it is to be frozen out of a settlements politics, or simply not see a way to get involved yourself. I would hope that if an active character is inspired by the change an election would bring they would be allowed to vote even if they gave up on the current politics going on there. Especially if they get involved in the RP around and after the election.

I don't think anyone's saying you have to be politically active to vote. Just that your character has a consistent active narrative - which could be nearly entirely disconnected from politics - in the time leading up to the election, ideally centered in or related to the settlement your character is a citizen of.

DMs were saying earlier in this thread you're expected to be active in the settlement. I don't agree that should be a clause since you could be a citizen, and care about that settlement, but run into a brick wall when you're trying to be involved there in the current regime so you spend your time elsewhere. I think you should still be allowed to come back to vote if that will spur you to get involved there again.

Spriggan Bride wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 12:51 am

DMs were saying earlier in this thread you're expected to be active in the settlement. I don't agree that should be a clause since you could be a citizen, and care about that settlement, but run into a brick wall when you're trying to be involved there in the current regime so you spend your time elsewhere. I think you should still be allowed to come back to vote if that will spur you to get involved there again.

In the case that your character wants to be active in a settlement but is frozen out, you could always try to rally votes for change. That too, is participating in the roleplay of the settlement. Being active in the roleplay of a settlement does not mean having to sit in the settlement all day. Bring back my example from a previous response to this thread, if your character is more involved with another settlement, then it might be well worth considering a switch over to that settlement in terms of citizenship instead.

That just doesn't line up with the experience I have in game. Politics is just one small part of Arelith to me and it's sometimes interesting and sometimes not. I'm probably not going to take the charge to "rally votes" if I don't fit in somewhere as much as shift my focus into some aspect that is currently interesting and probably not political at all. That could be in a different settlement but if I'm say, a halfling of Bendir hanging in Cordor to meet people for a RL month while a mayor I don't agree with is in charge back home that doesn't mean I want to be a Cordor citizen. Maybe I'm working on some other aspect of my character in that time who is disregarding politics completely. But that doesn't mean I couldn't be rallied myself and come back home to get involved when things might change, and when someone more dynamic than me is leading the way, which is why I am balking at this idea.

I would expect there are a lot of characters who only get involved in politics when the elections are happening and that should be fine. That's why they are voters not candidates. The only expectation should be that they are currently active and not some old character brought back to vote and get shelved again, in my opinion.

It really does read to me that DMs want to shut people out who aren't very interested in how a settlement is currently being ran from participating in the future of that settlement, whether or not that's the true intent of all of this.

Is the meta of running settlements to make being in the opposition to your settlement so miserable that your opposition doesn't feel like they can roleplay there or participate, then call the DMs on them when they become more active in that space to vote?

Where's the lines? I don't want to be forced to RP with people I don't want to RP with just so my say in a settlement is 'legitimate.' I feel like if my character's been part of a settlement for awhile, is an active participant in roleplay on Arelith, and they talk to someone who wants to change the current status quo and hear something they like, they should be able to vote in that election.

The way that the response to election fraud on arelith has been phrased makes it feel like DMs would prefer to shut out people who want to see change, is all I'm saying. Not every person who plays a citizen of a settlement that doesn't actively participate there because they don't like how it's currently being ran should have to 'rally the votes,' to legitimize their vote in an election.

That's insane.

There are countless of real world examples of people meddling in a region’s politics from afar. I think it should be a part of Arelith dynamics as well.

In my opinion as long as the char is active, and rping in way that is related to that settlement, they should be able to vote. They shouldn’t have to have spent much time said settlement physically.

On the extreme end this could be a surfacer, who lives in Dis, but is a citizen of Cordor, and wants to undermine the politics of cordor for evil reasons. They may not rp there much physically, but maybe support some usurper and are thus aligned with them through rp. That is still rp and should be totally valid. It’s not ooc log in for election wins.

Since there appears to be some confusion about this, let me write a longer response to clear it up:

A character must have engaged in plenty of roleplay before casting a vote. This means active in roleplaying in terms of engaging with other characters in conversation or emotes. Silent grinding does not count as actively roleplaying. This is a non-negotiable policy, and is the metric by which we use to judge if a voter if eligible or not.

The second point, which there is quite a few pieces of speculation on, comes with being active in the community a character is voting in. My point here is simply if a character is roleplaying actively in another settlement, then they should perhaps consider just joining said settlement. If a character owns a house in Guldorand, only participates in Guldorand events, and generally ignores the goings-on of Cordor, then that character should just become a Guldorand citizen. This is a suggestion, not a requirement.

DM Herald wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:28 am

Since there appears to be some confusion about this, let me write a longer response to clear it up:

A character must have engaged in plenty of roleplay before casting a vote. This means active in roleplaying in terms of engaging with other characters in conversation or emotes. Silent grinding does not count as actively roleplaying. This is a non-negotiable policy, and is the metric by which we use to judge if a voter if eligible or not.

The second point, which there is quite a few pieces of speculation on, comes with being active in the community a character is voting in. My point here is simply if a character is roleplaying actively in another settlement, then they should perhaps consider just joining said settlement. If a character owns a house in Guldorand, only participates in Guldorand events, and generally ignores the goings-on of Cordor, then that character should just become a Guldorand citizen. This is a suggestion, not a requirement.

So, what's the general fraudulent behavior? Dungeon PC? Shelved PC? PC in exile because X leader harassed them?

DM Herald wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:28 am

Since there appears to be some confusion about this, let me write a longer response to clear it up:

A character must have engaged in plenty of roleplay before casting a vote. This means active in roleplaying in terms of engaging with other characters in conversation or emotes. Silent grinding does not count as actively roleplaying. This is a non-negotiable policy, and is the metric by which we use to judge if a voter if eligible or not.

The second point, which there is quite a few pieces of speculation on, comes with being active in the community a character is voting in. My point here is simply if a character is roleplaying actively in another settlement, then they should perhaps consider just joining said settlement. If a character owns a house in Guldorand, only participates in Guldorand events, and generally ignores the goings-on of Cordor, then that character should just become a Guldorand citizen. This is a suggestion, not a requirement.

Thank you, Herald, for clarifying.

Were the people, whose votes are now made void, notified and given an explanation as to why their vote was invalid? I would hope so, as that would give them an opportunity at correcting their behavior.

MissEvelyn wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 4:08 am

DM Herald wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 2:28 am

Since there appears to be some confusion about this, let me write a longer response to clear it up:

A character must have engaged in plenty of roleplay before casting a vote. This means active in roleplaying in terms of engaging with other characters in conversation or emotes. Silent grinding does not count as actively roleplaying. This is a non-negotiable policy, and is the metric by which we use to judge if a voter if eligible or not.

The second point, which there is quite a few pieces of speculation on, comes with being active in the community a character is voting in. My point here is simply if a character is roleplaying actively in another settlement, then they should perhaps consider just joining said settlement. If a character owns a house in Guldorand, only participates in Guldorand events, and generally ignores the goings-on of Cordor, then that character should just become a Guldorand citizen. This is a suggestion, not a requirement.

Thank you, Herald, for clarifying.

Were the people, whose votes are now made void, notified and given an explanation as to why their vote was invalid? I would hope so, as that would give them an opportunity at correcting their behavior.

As I stated in my original announcement here on the forums, and on Discord, I have a list of individuals to address. All votes removed were as a result of insufficient or non-existent roleplay in the weeks leading up to the election. As not everyone follows up with the forums or discord, I consider it a responsibility to ensure players know when they are in violation of server policy.

Scurvy Cur wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 9:20 pm

In Sorrow We Trust wrote: Thu Mar 14, 2024 7:27 pm

guldorand elections were triggered by specific circumstances, that is not a reflection on election timers

True only for one of the three elections the city has had since January.

Roughly:

• elections started late January, on eligible timer
• elections started again mid February, approximately two weeks after the conclusion of the first set, due to disappearance of the previously elected sheriff
• elections started yesterday, on eligible timer

Currently elections have a 4.5ish day length, and a 28 day cooldown. I won’t opine at present whether the period should be shorter or longer, but by this time Monday, Guldorand will have spent 13.5 days of the last 40 or so holding elections. And only one of those was a special circumstances election.

And I think this is a bit to much. Sure someone can state it was disappearing and assassinations. But Myon could have a stand in Regent under a crisis. Meanwhile Guldorand had this madness going. I was part of the middle election and my character lost, I could run again but I still think its to much.

Nice Axe portrait.

Elections can be (and often are) extremely stressful for the candidates involved. They last 4 irl days and 16 hours, and for that duration very high demands are placed on the candidates, even if everyone plays within the rules.

Having to also worry about people playing unfair adds to that stress.
Things like...

• Suddenly seeing a bunch of new or previously inactive characters pop up and run to the election NPC;

• Seeing new or previously inactive characters engage in public debate;

• Seeing people actively talking about the election on multiple characters;

• Seeing unfounded accusations of OOC foul-play.

...Add a ton of stress to elections. Settlement leaders suffer a higher-than-normal burn-out rate on Arelith. A lot of people simply don't want to do the job because... Well, it's a job, and it comes with some responsibility.

I am very thankful to see the DMs take a public stance against election foul-play.

Aeryeris wrote: Fri Mar 15, 2024 9:51 am

• Seeing new or previously inactive characters engage in public debate;

This one bullet stands pretty far out from all of the others. Imo there is basically nothing else a PC can do after coming back from a hiatus, or coming to the Isle for the first time, other than speak with people and gather information on what is happening in the now.

How is this stressful? It's one of the core building blocks of RPing in general. Roleplaying and interacting with your fellow players to find more information?

I think there's something I'm missing, "Public Debate" is also a pretty vague term that any question asked in a public space could be labeled as.