Feedback on suggestion: 1 vote per player

[Dreams]

Suggestion: Players should only be able to vote in 1 settlement at any point in time. They might have multiple characters to play, but only 1 character should be the active voting character.

I'm looking for feedback on the above idea before I post it as a suggestion. Basically, the worry is that there exist players who have plenty of characters sitting in their vault and they might have a character per settlement. They might even be actively RPing 4-5 within the month, just casually jumping between whatever suits their fancy at the time - that's totally fine!

Imagine Player A has a character for Guld, Cordor, each Andunor settlement, Bendir, Brog, and Sib. They're active enough to hit the rule requirements of being able to vote. Should that be ok? Should one player be able to contribute to votes in settlements of an opposing area to the one their main character is in, just because they have an alt parked there? I think there's a conflict of interest that inevitably comes up when this is the case.

So, the way I imagine it might work is that you have citizenship and everything that currently exists in game, but a system is added over the top of the vote counting so that it checks:

• Has this CD Key voted within the current active period?
• If yes, the vote doesn't count.
• If no, the vote counts.
• Current active period resets after the current term of the last voted place ends. e.g. You voted in Cordor. The term ran into the next elections, you haven't voted there yet, you're now free to vote in that election OR start voting with another character. Assassinated? That's the term over. Resigned/abdicated? That's the term over.

What do you think?

edit: bonus benefit, prevents big groups of OOC cliques deciding on a flavour of the month set of characters to swamp a place and vote control whilst still holding control of another settlement on their other characters

[stoneheart-]

This is such an obvious thing that I actually thought that it was this way for years. I see now that I could have been multi-track drifting influencing multiple cities all this time. Oh well.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

dms typically do verify valid votes before allowing a character to be elected. there is a whole process behind that

[Dreams]

dms typically do verify valid votes before allowing a character to be elected. there is a whole process behind that

Yes, but do they check for this? Because this isn't a rule or anything. The whole point is that a player is currently well within the rules if they're actively roleplaying across three characters of different settlements to vote in each of those settlements with the respective characters whenever. I'm suggesting that this causes conflicts of interests, potential other problems, and that players should ideally be voting in a single settlement at a time.

Whether the DMs check that votes are valid or not is less relevant to the thing I'm addressing.

[Sincra]

Sounds sensible honestly.
Reduce complexity for DM's and lighten workload everytime an election happens.

[Darkstorn42]

The only downside i see is if you vote in an election and the person that won is in that position for an IRL year, yet you've shelved that character months ago, you are still locked out of voting. So I like the idea in theory, but maybe if the voting PC doesn't log in for 1 IRL month, it should reset your voting CD?

(One month because that's how long from signing citizen papers to being allowed to vote takes)

Not sure how feasible that is from a coding side.

[Dreams]

The only downside i see is if you vote in an election and the person that won is in that position for an IRL year, yet you've shelved that character months ago, you are still locked out of voting. So I like the idea in theory, but maybe if the voting PC doesn't log in for 1 IRL month, it should reset your voting CD?

(One month because that's how long from signing citizen papers to being allowed to vote takes)

Not sure how feasible that is from a coding side.

• Current active period resets after the current term of the last voted place ends. e.g. You voted in Cordor. The term ran into the next elections, you haven't voted there yet, you're now free to vote in that election OR start voting with another character.

Not 1 RL year, but 1 standard election term as the maximum amount of time, so what I've suggested is at most a month. It's just that the last place you voted at needs to come into an election period before you vote on the next. Time runs out, or they leave, or they get assassinated. Now your vote is no longer tied in to something that's in play and you as a player are free to spend it again.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

dms typically do verify valid votes before allowing a character to be elected. there is a whole process behind that

Yes, but do they check for this? Because this isn't a rule or anything. The whole point is that a player is currently well within the rules if they're actively roleplaying across three characters of different settlements to vote in each of those settlements with the respective characters whenever. I'm suggesting that this causes conflicts of interests, potential other problems, and that players should ideally be voting in a single settlement at a time.

Whether the DMs check that votes are valid or not is less relevant to the thing I'm addressing.

yeah, because multiple votes is not valid. so they would discard one.

automating it would make things easier, though

[Chaoshawk]

I think if the duration is one election term mechanically as suggested then this seems sensible and I didn't realize one could theoretically could vote in every election so long as they showed a pulse on the character.

[Dreams]

dms typically do verify valid votes before allowing a character to be elected. there is a whole process behind that

Yes, but do they check for this? Because this isn't a rule or anything. The whole point is that a player is currently well within the rules if they're actively roleplaying across three characters of different settlements to vote in each of those settlements with the respective characters whenever. I'm suggesting that this causes conflicts of interests, potential other problems, and that players should ideally be voting in a single settlement at a time.

Whether the DMs check that votes are valid or not is less relevant to the thing I'm addressing.

yeah, because multiple votes is not valid. so they would discard one.

automating it would make things easier, though

You're missing the point of this. I'm not talking about 1 player having multiple alts in 1 settlement and all voting in that settlement. That wouldn't be allowed.

I'm talking about 1 player having multiple alts in multiple settlements and participating across all settlements with all of those characters, with enough roleplay to not be flagged by DM checks.

e.g.
Player has Bob of Guldorand, George of Cordor, Dinkshitz of the Sharps, Elfette of Myon, Veldrin Drizzt'mo of the Devil's Table, Bingobongo of Greyport, Duncan Digger of Brogendenstein, Sam al Salim of Sibayad, and Fiddler of Bendir Dale. In the 1 RL month, they vote in every one of those settlements.

[In Sorrow We Trust]

think a DM would have to respond on this but i definitely feel like those extra votes would be discarded if you were playing in other settlements on other characters

[Algol]

An account wide timer after voting could be interesting, but it'd give assassinations too much power to remove a popular faction from leadership. But perhaps that's a good thing?

[Dreams]

An account wide timer after voting could be interesting, but it'd give assassinations too much power to remove a popular faction from leadership. But perhaps that's a good thing?

If implemented the way I suggested, the assassination of a leader would be one of the ways that voting is reset. Votes tied up in that leader would then be free to either vote again or vote elsewhere.

Instead of giving assassins more power, it means the votes and choices of the player are more important because they can’t just then go influence other settlements immediately after voting in one.

[Coolguy McMagic]

think a DM would have to respond on this but i definitely feel like those extra votes would be discarded if you were playing in other settlements on other characters

To clarify, the rules clearly state that multiple votes in multiple settlements are allowed, as long as each character is actively roleplaying in said settlement:

"Players are only allowed to vote in a settlement election that they're active in with one character. If you play in Cordor, you can vote in an election there one time. If you play in Guldorand and Cordor actively, you can vote in both of those elections separately. You can not vote with multiple characters in the same election. This is crossing the streams."

So this suggestion is NOT related to reducing DM workload or describing something that is already being done - it is specifically a suggestion for a change of rules.

[chocolatelover]

I wholeheartedly support this.

Let's say that IN GAME a group decides to commit multiple leadership assassinations across Arelith. Then, they could influence the elections and results in every settlement. If they have planted multiple characters in every settlement, this is a valid RP event. (Here's hoping I haven't given anyone an idea!)

However, if those multiple characters are played by the SAME PLAYERS, then this becomes an OOC metagaming event.

Ridiculous? Let's hope. But even without such a thing, let's say that you, the player, plays Bob in Guldorand and Meat-Stuck-Between-Teeth in Sibayad. Could you possibly be voting for Character X in one settlement to benefit you character in the other? Yes. And there isn't really a way to police that. It's also a bit of human nature to fool yourself.

I don't think missing out on one election because you (the player) has just voted in another one in a different settlement is too much to ask. It might make players focus on one pc over another. Maybe Bob is more involved in the community and government in Guldorand, but Meat just wants to bash things and sell ore in Sibayad.

Just a thought.

[Algol]

Imagine a faction wants to take control of a settlement. They could assassinate every single settlement leader while making sure all of their members vote in the same settlement to win the election. This seems like gaming the mechanics to me and too much of an OOC strategy.

[Coolguy McMagic]

Imagine a faction wants to take control of a settlement. They could assassinate every single settlement leader while making sure all of their members vote in the same settlement to win the election. This seems like gaming the mechanics to me and too much of an OOC strategy.

That sounds like the system working as intended to me. As long as there is no OOC plotting or abusing alts (which the DMs are supposed to detect), I don't see why a faction with enough members to win an election shouldn't be allowed to take over a settlement via assassination, assumingt they put in the proper IC work.

[The GrumpyCat]

I kinda like this suggestion too, for what it's worth.

[find me in the future]

I like the idea of players only being able to vote in one settlement within a timeframe after an active vote is placed.

It benefits the DMs by reducing workload in case of outlying "X player is my enemy from Settlement 1 on Character A, and their Character B voted against mine in Settlement 2!" situations. It also helps players avoid these scenarios of accidental/indirect stream-crossing.

To quote Sincra: this sounds sensible.

[Algol]

Imagine a faction wants to take control of a settlement. They could assassinate every single settlement leader while making sure all of their members vote in the same settlement to win the election. This seems like gaming the mechanics to me and too much of an OOC strategy.

That sounds like the system working as intended to me. As long as there is no OOC plotting or abusing alts (which the DMs are supposed to detect), I don't see why a faction with enough members to win an election shouldn't be allowed to take over a settlement via assassination, assumingt they put in the proper IC work.

Assassinating leadership of the Devil's Table to secure an election in Cordor seems very gamey to me.

[Aeryeris]

Voting is subject to an activity requirement. The current system covers this quite well as far as I can tell. I don't believe we need further restrictions, especially not ones that disproportionately harm people who play multiple characters.

I am sure something like this would reduce DM workload, but I'm not hearing DMs telling us their election-related workload is a significant problem.

[Coolguy McMagic]

Imagine a faction wants to take control of a settlement. They could assassinate every single settlement leader while making sure all of their members vote in the same settlement to win the election. This seems like gaming the mechanics to me and too much of an OOC strategy.

That sounds like the system working as intended to me. As long as there is no OOC plotting or abusing alts (which the DMs are supposed to detect), I don't see why a faction with enough members to win an election shouldn't be allowed to take over a settlement via assassination, assumingt they put in the proper IC work.

Assassinating leadership of the Devil's Table to secure an election in Cordor seems very gamey to me.

Maybe I don't understand the issue. Is this scenario assuming there is a this hypothetical account-wide election timer and that not enough people can vote in Cordor because too many have alts in the Devil's Table?

[Dreams]

Voting is subject to an activity requirement. The current system covers this quite well as far as I can tell. I don't believe we need further restrictions, especially not ones that disproportionately harm people who play multiple characters.

I am sure something like this would reduce DM workload, but I'm not hearing DMs telling us their election-related workload is a significant problem.

It boils down to similar issues as Crossing Streams. The big problem here is that this is one of those things that may go unnoticed or silent for a long time without DMs or players beind aware of there being a problem. How can someone report Player A if they don't know Player A plays both Character A in the leading faction of Cordor and also Character B in their opposing settlement Guldanor, specifically voting to get the most ideal candidates elected for their Character A? Only a DM is going to be able to be aware of that and honestly I'd hazard a guess that activity + CD Keys are the metrics getting tracked without much consideration of each voter's motives as a character/player.

Not only would this reduce DM workload, it would assist in avoiding unfair election stacking by OOC groups or OOC motivations. A player doesn't need to be able to vote in every single settlement. Even if you're playing more than one character, maybe you just focus politically on one and have the other care slightly less about the politics of the settlement system. You don't lose your vote, you just become more selective in how you use it. It leads to a better quality system for everyone.

[Dreams]

Multiple elections happening right now. One player can currently vote in all of them assuming they’ve had enough action on each character voting.

[PowerWord Rage]

Having only one single vote from each player will truly reflect the weight, value and most importantly, serious consideration from the player before they cast it.
It's the same as -relevel system whereby during when it was not a thing, every leveling up is something that you truly spend time thinking and every single growth, is a step that you calculate ( although including myself, miscalculated plenty of times lmao )

Voting is something of extreme importance, as much as it is, IRL.
I'll agree to anything that raises it's importance.

Sure, there're pros and cons but I can't think of any scenario (cons) vs (pros) that outweighs raising it's importance.

+1 to 1 vote per player