Arelith

Durvayas wrote: Mon Jan 28, 2019 12:05 pm 3 would be obscenely abusable. We've already seen what happens when elections cycle continuously in the past(the sharps had a near continuous cycle of called elections and bankrupcy from the paralysed practice until they got put on the tyrant system two years ago) It causes real fatigue and disenchantment with the system, and it would eliminated any and all stability in politics on the server.

So basically, surface settlements need change and conflict, but UD needs stability? What's good for the goose is good for the gander. Plenty of us surface players would like more stability, we already have fatigue and disenchantment from the system. I believe there could be a healthier balance, myself. Not saying you're completely wrong, constant elections is probably a bad idea. But I do find it amusing how quick people who constantly call for conflict/change in other people's RP and even berate them for not liking it suddenly want stability when an idea is proposed that might shake up their own RP a bit. I'll tell you the same thing I was told, you're not entitled to stability. If Anundor can't rally behind a single decent leader for their own well-being why shouldn't they face the consequences IC of being a bankrupted unstable settlement? Why should the DM's bail you guys out of a bad situation you made for yourselves, but not us surface dwellers?

I blame democracy.

A system where two gnomes have more say than a person.

Ridiculous.

I don't think there is anything else to add.

There are a lot of ways the system could be re-imagined and re-done, and none are ever going to be perfect. If you have an actual suggestion to make about it, then do so once the suggestion thread is unlocked.