Due to recent events that have come to light. It's time for another discussion...
What would you consider to be a reasonable solution for 'Our Evil Mayor Destroyed the City Hall'?
As you all know, Update 8 introduced a few protections for this - such as, the City Hall can not be destroyed during 'Voting Week'. And, ousted Mayors can no longer destroy the City Hall after they have lost the election.
Were these tweaks enough? Would more involved changes prevent a Mayor from effectively managing his/her City?
/Discuss
-Millbarge
*Disclaimer*: Millbarge does not intend on introducing any changes to the Voting System or a Mayor's Powers at this time. However, as with anything Millbarge says, is subject to change without notice.
I've always thought that the destruction sequence should trigger a vote and countdown of its own.Basically the mayor triggers a destruction order and all citizens are notified.The citizens can then vote on whether or not to allow their city to be destroyed.A simple majority of votes cast would be enough to allow it with the mayor's vote automatically being cast in favor of destruction.The mayor (new or old) should be able to stop the destruction at any time.At the same time, you need a means for a sitting mayor to resign from office.If I no longer want to be mayor of a city and instead take up residence somewhere else, there is no way for me to do this without either destroying the city or convincing someone else to run for mayor.If no one will run against me, I am forever trapped as the mayor even if I don't run again.
Oh, and there should also be a means of reducing the wait time for city destruction in those cases where city removal was truly the desired result.Maybe once a majority of residents have voted in favor of it, the destruction should be immediate since there's no way that the opposition could win.Maybe only count the citizens who have logged in within the past 21-30 days when calculating that majority.
Millbarge wrote:
Due to recent events that have come to light. It's time for another discussion...What would you consider to be a reasonable solution for 'Our Evil Mayor Destroyed the City Hall'?As you all know, Update 8 introduced a few protections for this - such as, the City Hall can not be destroyed during 'Voting Week'. And, ousted Mayors can no longer destroy the City Hall after they have lost the election.Were these tweaks enough? Would more involved changes prevent a Mayor from effectively managing his/her City?/Discuss-Millbarge*Disclaimer*: Millbarge does not intend on introducing any changes to the Voting System or a Mayor's Powers at this time. However, as with anything Millbarge says, is subject to change without notice.
How is it you want to discuss it AFTER deleting MY thread about the 'recent events'?
Millbarge .. you are all that and a bag of chips in my book ... but come on .. DELETING a RELEVANT thread?
I digress.
No .. the changes were not enough. Anytime a mayor can do what happened in the 'incident' you mentioned, the playerbase should with every right be OUTRAGED that it was allowed to happen. ESPECIALLY after all that went on.
Changes that IMO should be implemented.
City hall should not be allowed to be destroyed without a vote.
The mail gives citizens the chance to actually voice their concerns about whether or not the city should be destroyed AS WELL as gives them to oust said mayor if they deem him having 'served his purpose'.
Elyssa wrote:
great ideas i'd love to see happen
What Elyssa said!
And also, we really could use some method like this to vote an existing citizen out of the city and their structures flagged for packup. There are too many greedy and selfish people out there playing on Station Access accoutns who log in once a month just to re-list their storage vendors. Not to play, not to be a part of the city community, not to put anything into the city. Thier only purpose is to maintain their plot of land. I don't have a problem with them doing the log-to-keep vendors alive thing, only the part where they maintain a spot in a city that may be trying to reinvigorate itself, but gimping it by means of the guild hall dropped in an awkward place that never leaves, is never used.
Krelos wrote:
City hall should not be allowed to be destroyed without a vote.Mayor Destructor goes to the city terminal and pulls up a radial menu and selects 'Motion to destroy city'Mayor Destructor is prompted with a 'Give the reason you are forwarding the motion to delete the city of Havenopolis' where he types his reason in the field provided much the same as when he withdraws treasury funds.All citizens then recieve a mail stating "Mayor Destructor has decided the city has served out its purpose and forwards the motion that the city be un-incorporated for (insert reason stated by mayor who has to have a reason when he goes to the terminal)."The city voting terminal has a new voting option when radialed to vote to DESTROY or KEEP the city active once the motion is initiated by said mayor.Destruction cycle is the same as the voting cycle.The mail gives citizens the chance to actually voice their concerns about whether or not the city should be destroyed AS WELL as gives them to oust said mayor if they deem him having 'served his purpose'.
this
and this...
Elyssa wrote:At the same time, you need a means for a sitting mayor to resign from office.If I no longer want to be mayor of a city and instead take up residence somewhere else, there is no way for me to do this without either destroying the city or convincing someone else to run for mayor.If no one will run against me, I am forever trapped as the mayor even if I don't run again.
At the same time, you need a means for a sitting mayor to resign from office.If I no longer want to be mayor of a city and instead take up residence somewhere else, there is no way for me to do this without either destroying the city or convincing someone else to run for mayor.If no one will run against me, I am forever trapped as the mayor even if I don't run again.
Flagged as Corrupted Politician with inability to enter a mayoral race for a 1 year duration.
And a spank. lol
I personally would rather see dev time spent on other things. If a mayor bent on the destruction of a city get voted in, then, in my opinion, the citizens didn't care enough about the city to have it around and the destruction of the city is their own fault. If they are lied to by some new mayor and that mayor is vendictive and manipulating and then destroys the city, then I think that's a special case that can fall into the realm of customer service to resolve. I don't think we need a huge amount of checks and balances created by the dev team in order to resolve an issue that isn't really an issue. If it really is an issue (like if this vendictive mayor thing is happening once a week or something), then perhaps something needs to be done to offload the customer service team.
GothicPoodle wrote:
I'd say what you described is that happened in the 'recent events' that Millbarge referenced ... only thing is Customer Service decided to not do anything about it and the citizens lost the city ... despite the mayor putting items over the terminal to prevent votes (remported and items removed) and then threatening to delete the city hall if he didnt win the election (which he did and is still not banned.)
It is an issue and this most recent incident proves as much.
If you lost your city the way these citizens did, you would not be so quick to say, "I personally would rather see dev time spent on other things."
Millbarge wrote:Due to recent events that have come to light. It's time for another discussion...What would you consider to be a reasonable solution for 'Our Evil Mayor Destroyed the City Hall'?As you all know, Update 8 introduced a few protections for this - such as, the City Hall can not be destroyed during 'Voting Week'. And, ousted Mayors can no longer destroy the City Hall after they have lost the election.Were these tweaks enough? Would more involved changes prevent a Mayor from effectively managing his/her City?/Discuss-Millbarge*Disclaimer*: Millbarge does not intend on introducing any changes to the Voting System or a Mayor's Powers at this time. However, as with anything Millbarge says, is subject to change without notice.How is it you want to discuss it AFTER deleting MY thread about the 'recent events'? Millbarge .. you are all that and a bag of chips in my book ... but come on .. DELETING a RELEVANT thread? I digress. No .. the changes were not enough. Anytime a mayor can do what happened in the 'incident' you mentioned, the playerbase should with every right be OUTRAGED that it was allowed to happen. ESPECIALLY after all that went on.Changes that IMO should be implemented.City hall should not be allowed to be destroyed without a vote.Mayor Destructor goes to the city terminal and pulls up a radial menu and selects 'Motion to destroy city'Mayor Destructor is prompted with a 'Give the reason you are forwarding the motion to delete the city of Havenopolis' where he types his reason in the field provided much the same as when he withdraws treasury funds.All citizens then recieve a mail stating "Mayor Destructor has decided the city has served out its purpose and forwards the motion that the city be un-incorporated for (insert reason stated by mayor who has to have a reason when he goes to the terminal)."The city voting terminal has a new voting option when radialed to vote to DESTROY or KEEP the city active once the motion is initiated by said mayor.Destruction cycle is the same as the voting cycle.The mail gives citizens the chance to actually voice their concerns about whether or not the city should be destroyed AS WELL as gives them to oust said mayor if they deem him having 'served his purpose'.
I don't delete threads - The most moderating I've done was removing some posts that had avatars the size of my living-room wall. It was a good picture of Smed, but it was a little over the top in the way of size.
I am currently working on a command that will target the City Voting Terminal for you if you can not access it through normal means. It should be headed for testing early next week - and to the Live servers near the end of the month.
*Disclaimer*: No pictures of Smed were harmed when deleting the above mentioned posts.
Krelos wrote:Millbarge wrote:Due to recent events that have come to light. It's time for another discussion...What would you consider to be a reasonable solution for 'Our Evil Mayor Destroyed the City Hall'?As you all know, Update 8 introduced a few protections for this - such as, the City Hall can not be destroyed during 'Voting Week'. And, ousted Mayors can no longer destroy the City Hall after they have lost the election.Were these tweaks enough? Would more involved changes prevent a Mayor from effectively managing his/her City?/Discuss-Millbarge*Disclaimer*: Millbarge does not intend on introducing any changes to the Voting System or a Mayor's Powers at this time. However, as with anything Millbarge says, is subject to change without notice.How is it you want to discuss it AFTER deleting MY thread about the 'recent events'? Millbarge .. you are all that and a bag of chips in my book ... but come on .. DELETING a RELEVANT thread? I digress. No .. the changes were not enough. Anytime a mayor can do what happened in the 'incident' you mentioned, the playerbase should with every right be OUTRAGED that it was allowed to happen. ESPECIALLY after all that went on.Changes that IMO should be implemented.City hall should not be allowed to be destroyed without a vote.Mayor Destructor goes to the city terminal and pulls up a radial menu and selects 'Motion to destroy city'Mayor Destructor is prompted with a 'Give the reason you are forwarding the motion to delete the city of Havenopolis' where he types his reason in the field provided much the same as when he withdraws treasury funds.All citizens then recieve a mail stating "Mayor Destructor has decided the city has served out its purpose and forwards the motion that the city be un-incorporated for (insert reason stated by mayor who has to have a reason when he goes to the terminal)."The city voting terminal has a new voting option when radialed to vote to DESTROY or KEEP the city active once the motion is initiated by said mayor.Destruction cycle is the same as the voting cycle.The mail gives citizens the chance to actually voice their concerns about whether or not the city should be destroyed AS WELL as gives them to oust said mayor if they deem him having 'served his purpose'. I don't delete threads - The most moderating I've done was removing some posts that had avatars the size of my living-room wall. It was a good picture of Smed, but it was a little over the top in the way of size.I am currently working on a command that will target the City Voting Terminal for you if you can not access it through normal means. It should be headed for testing early next week - and to the Live servers near the end of the month.-Millbarge*Disclaimer*: No pictures of Smed were harmed when deleting the above mentioned posts.
THis is very good to hear. I was mortified by that starsider incident with that jerk guy who piled up all the fake voting terminals on top of the real one so people couldnt vote him out. We definatly need a way to get round that kind of political griefing and corruption.
How about just a /voteForMayor command that works in city hall if you're a resident?
I agree that making city hall destruction a long term decision rather than instantaneous would make a situation like this much less likely.
* Make the destruction sequence 42 days long (6 full weeks) - this guarantees that there will be another voting cycle - opportunity for concerned citizens to rally and vote in a mayor who more closely reflects their desires. No separate voting system needed.
Obviously for this to work, an email should be sent to all citizens when the destruction sequence is initiated and the current mayor should have the option to abort the destruction at any time. A countdown feature on the terminal in city hall and/or additional warning emails to citizens would also be helpful.
On a side note, this isn't the first we've heard of someone using items to block the voting terminal as a strategy to discourage voting. It would be nice to have a citizen device similar to the player association one which could allow the player to vote without having to access the city hall.
