Sign in to follow this  
Ekcin

Let deeds change to democracy on long mayor's absence

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Stinboi said:

Lets say i make a big deed, and put alot of silver in the upkeep that maybe last for a couple of years and go away for a few months(maybe something in rl happen so i cant log on to even tell that i will be away for awhile), then i come back 3 months later and everything i have worked on for maybe years and all the rl money i might have spent is just taken away from me.

 

Good point. I agree. 

 

A deed belongs to the mayor who paid for it, whether they are actively playing or not. We can't just expropriate a player for being away from the game for an extended period of time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yaga said:

 

Good point. I agree. 

 

A deed belongs to the mayor who paid for it, whether they are actively playing or not. We can't just expropriate a player for being away from the game for an extended period of time. 

 

I don't think anyone proposed that.

 

My understanding was that all the proposals are variations on this basic idea: Allow players to pay for the deed, and take ownership, after the mayor's money has run out.

Edited by Sheffie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stinboi, you just seem not to understand and completely ignore what I write. Or is it so hard to understand?

 

If a mayor creates a deed, leaves enough upkeep, and is away for any reason, the deed will be untouchable until it disbands. That is okay. Usually, a mayor would not disappear suddenly and leave the villagers without notice. Even if so, if you

Quote

make a big deed, and put alot of silver in the upkeep that maybe last for a couple of years and go away for a few months

nothing will and must happen, as there is still upkeep paid by the mayor. There "is no workaround" because that has not been proposed.

 

Btw, this is true even if you make a small deed. The problems arising are those of villagers stranded in a deed where the mayor left without notice, the deed is in danger to drop. Often, the villagers paid upkeep already for longer periods of time (cases known where that is the case for a year or more). If not, the deed would drop and

Quote

everything [you] have worked on for maybe years and all the rl money i might have spent is just taken away from [you]

Is that so hard to understand? Why do you want to derail my proposal?

 

Certainly the villagers can leave, let the deed drop, loot the mayor's house once the first wall is gone (which will be faster than their own ones). In  fact that is not what they want. They may even hope for a return.

Edited by Ekcin
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I often have near or around 30 days of upkeep cause I have many deeds and little money this year.
I do also have villagers on some deeds, people I added so they could chat in alliance while on server.

 

On Harmony I have two deeds I just pay upkeep for, I have not played there in a long time.

And I have villagers there also.

With the suggestion above I'd risk my deeds every month. To some random players from other servers that I just added to be helpful.
 

HUGE minus 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again: How hard is it to understand the difference between "around 30 days of upkeep" and all upkeep of the sitting mayor used up (plus a period where the villagers paid to keep the deed alive)?

 

Du you seriously assert that your villagers do not know Cecci, know no way to contact you, or are greedy to take over your deeds?

 

Sad comment.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Ekcin said:

 are greedy to take over your deeds?

 

 

What is the point of this topic if not to take over a deed? And are you sure that is not to some extent out of greed?
Also: You have no idea what I have in my storage.

 

I also want to quote Yaga: "A deed belongs to the mayor who paid for it, whether they are actively playing or not. We can't just expropriate a player for being away from the game for an extended period of time. "

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't fancy the chances of this getting up.  If so many players can so completely misunderstand it, then it doesn't bode well for the devs to see it clearly.

 

This is NOT about taking a deed off a mayor.  It is about protecting the villagers from deedfall due to a mayor that has gone inactive.  Most of the naysayers seem to think that the citizens are some kind of serf class who have no right to keep what they have built unless they keep tipping in upkeep to maintain a deed in such a way that what they have been protecting could be taken away from them, despite their time and silver spent, by a mayor eventually return to take up again a deed to which they may have contributed nothing for a significant period of time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Cecci said:

"A deed belongs to the mayor who paid for it

So what about after anything the mayor paid has run out and someone else has been paying for it?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this idea is inviting some guy to come back and find an empty deed, submit a ticket, and quit the game right after he finds that "new player" he took in cleaned him out and the GMs can't do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again another irreal construction. The alternative would be that "'the new player' he took in" waited for the deed to drop, recreated a deed with the absent mayor's buildings in perimeter (thus gone within a week or two), then created his own deed at that place. That would be the hard way, and is probably the way it is done now.

 

On the other hand, there are villagers who want the deed to remain in place, are possibly welcoming the former mayer on comeback. Also, existing alliances would not be broken up for the villagers and the deed founder.

 

Again: The proposal is directed to situations where the mayor's contributions to upkeep have run out. The villagers may have to pay upkeep for further e.g. 3 or 4  months before they can appoint a new mayor. For the previous mayor, the deed would be gone anyway without the villagers taking action. All the rejections ignore that and try to derail the proposal. 

Edited by Ekcin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, TheTrickster said:

This is NOT about taking a deed off a mayor.  It is about protecting the villagers from deedfall due to a mayor that has gone inactive.

You just add to upkeep then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I understand the idea behind the proposal. And if there was a fair way of solving it, I would like it.

 

But. There is some pretty big problems for automated solution like this.

 

Before going further, can you explain how it would be tracked how much mayor paid for the deed over time? I mean mayor as player, not just character.

For example, many people use alts as mayors. But they can dump in upkeep from their other characters, who may or may not be villagers. Just comparing mayor vs. villagers can't be reliable as who knows how many of the villagers are actually the player behind mayor. Or how much of none-villager contribution is some generous by-passer or the player who owns the mayor-character.

 

I find few other ways too, how this could be tricky and/or exploitable. But more of those once I hear solution for tracking contributions issue.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Wilczan said:

You just add to upkeep then.

Or read the next couple of sentences where I mentioned exactly that.   That doesn't protect them, as they are then the ones paying and the mayor is the one who can just come in and clean them out.  

 

The rejections are basically saying that even if a mayor leaves for some long period without any communication and without paying any upkeep, others should keep paying upkeep while the mayor is gone specifically to maintain the deed FOR the mayor who gets the benefit of everybody's time and money without having to put their own in.  The logic just doesn't hold water:- the mayor is entitled to what they pay for AND what others pay for.  Others are entitled to neither what the mayor paid for NOR what they paid for themselves.  That just doesn't make sense.  

 

So, if I deed a location, that location in Wurm is forever mine?  If I walk away from it, I can expect that others have to keep the deed going until I decide to take it up again, at which all of their investment is forfeited to me.  Okay, sign me up for that.

 

 

Edited by TheTrickster

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheTrickster said:

Or read the next couple of sentences where I mentioned exactly that.   That doesn't protect them, as they are then the ones paying and the mayor is the one who can just come in and clean them out.  

 

The rejections are basically saying that even if a mayor leaves for some long period without any communication and without paying any upkeep, others should keep paying upkeep while the mayor is gone specifically to maintain the deed FOR the mayor who gets the benefit of everybody's time and money without having to put their own in.  The logic just doesn't hold water:- the mayor is entitled to what they pay for AND what others pay for.  Others are entitled to neither what the mayor paid for NOR what they paid for themselves.  That just doesn't make sense.  

 

So, if I deed a location, that location in Wurm is forever mine?  If I walk away from it, I can expect that others have to keep the deed going until I decide to take it up again, at which all of their investment is forfeited to me.  Okay, sign me up for that.

 

 

Like I said, you just add to upkeep.

 

Let's say deed got 10 villagers and the mayor is gone for some reason and it's gonna disband.

 

You can make a brainstorm with other villagers and:

- leave the deed, taking all your stuff, towards the setting sun

- or collectively pay for 1 month in advance, in hope that he will return

- or do nothing, with risk that you probably gonna need to bash through the fences to even try to leave this deed, after disband

 

Let's say villagers choose second option and after another month still no mayor. Just go back to first step.

 

None is forcing anyone to stay. Mayor gets the benefit of everybody's time and money only if you let him too.

Mayor is not entitled to anything, it's his deed and you choose to live in it, without any guarantee that he won't dissapear, that he won't bash your house and take your stuff or that he just throw you out of the deed.

 

As for location, it is his as long as he pays for it, BUT normally when deed disbands, there are still houses with permissions left, so none is able to deed area until houses are gone (on pvp you can bash those or catapult).

That's mechanics of this game.

If players were meant to take over deed, just when upkeep is gone, they would automatically had access to all the houses and things couse of mayor privileges. Not to mention about skipping deed funding cost and cost of all the infrastructure.

Edited by Wilczan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there would need to be an emergency upkeep fund, or escrow account, or Phoenix Fund. Call it whatever you want.

 

Because players would need to put money somewhere other than the regular upkeep fund, in order to take over and preserve the deed when its official upkeep fund runs out.

 

The downside of this approach is that the deed would still go through 30 days of decay before changing ownership.

The upside is that it would be 100% clear whether money was meant to preserve the original deed or pay for the new deed.

Another upside is that it would be 100% clear when the absent mayor's funding had run out — meaning that they no longer had any moral claim to the land.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nestangol said:

I think I understand the idea behind the proposal. And if there was a fair way of solving it, I would like it.

But. There is some pretty big problems for automated solution like this.

 

There is no "automated solution". There is a mechanism offering prevention of a deed either staying in limbo or going down.

 

6 hours ago, Nestangol said:

Before going further, can you explain how it would be tracked how much mayor paid for the deed over time? I mean mayor as player, not just character.

For example, many people use alts as mayors. But they can dump in upkeep from their other characters, who may or may not be villagers. Just comparing mayor vs. villagers can't be reliable as who knows how many of the villagers are actually the player behind mayor. Or how much of none-villager contribution is some generous by-passer or the player who owns the mayor-character.

 

The point in time which would count would be the last login of the sitting mayor. All upkeep in fund are "the mayor's", therefore no action until these funds have run out, and an additional period to be sure. And what hinders an active player who is dropping upkeep into a deed just to relog his alt for a minute?

 

6 hours ago, Nestangol said:

I find few other ways too, how this could be tricky and/or exploitable. But more of those once I hear solution for tracking contributions issue.

 

My feeling is that there are a lot of kneejerk reactions without a lot of thinking about, or a bonehead "no changes" attitude like e.g. Wilczan's.

 

The idea just is to prevent that a deed goes down. It could be made necessary that the last month of upkeep has started already, keeping the vilagers busy repairing, and that they have to declare (deed token option for villagers) that they intend to keep the deed afterwards, and then have to pay upkeep for 3 months in advance. If the mayor returns within that period, the opportunity would be gone, and the upkeep of course belonging to the mayor.

 

In fact, that would be exploitable by a mayor just getting few extra cash on cost of villagers, but I consider that a neglectible issue. The case I am addressing, and already observed, is that the villagers were and still are at good terms with the mayor and would be happy and welcoming her return anytime.

 

If the villagers were in poor terms with the mayor already, they would just let the deed fall, re-deed from outside to make buildings of the absent mayor crumble faster to extend, bash pen fences to take all livestock to the new deed, loot the houses etc., and if the mayor were unwilling to allow takeover, she could boot all villagers before going absent. So all the panic of Wilczan and others is addressing the wrong target.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Ekcin said:

The idea just is to prevent that a deed goes down.

 

8 hours ago, Wilczan said:

You just add to upkeep then.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote
8 hours ago, Wilczan said:

You just add to upkeep then.

Out of arguments. I see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Ekcin said:

Out of arguments. I see.

There is no need for more arguments. And no panic or "no changes" attitude as you assumed so quickly.

 

It's just existing solution, I believe sufficient to prevent disband of the deed.

 

You are searching rather for solution to prevent disband and overtake of deed.

Edited by Wilczan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Wilczan said:

There is no need for arguments. And no panic or "no changes" attitude as you assumed so quickly.

It's just existing solution, I believe sufficient to prevent disband of the deed.

You are searching rather for solution to prevent disband and overtake of deed.

Your ignorance and denial mode is stunning, maybe due to your isolated existence on a (sadly) widely abandoned PvP server.

 

And yes, the solution searched is to prevent a deed from disbanding, falling off existing alliances, all livestock getting unbranded. It is not directed towards the mayor who would not have any advantage from the deed falling rather disadvantages in case of return.

 

The "existing solution" does not help when deeds are in limbo with the mayor having disappeared. And there are some of such cases on PvE servers. Nobody would lose anything with these issues being addressed.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Ekcin said:

Your ignorance and denial mode is stunning, maybe due to your isolated existence on a (sadly) widely abandoned PvP server.

 

And yes, the solution searched is to prevent a deed from disbanding, falling off existing alliances, all livestock getting unbranded. It is not directed towards the mayor who would not have any advantage from the deed falling rather disadvantages in case of return.

 

The "existing solution" does not help when deeds are in limbo with the mayor having disappeared. And there are some of such cases on PvE servers. Nobody would lose anything with these issues being addressed.

 

You  talk about no arguments and yet yourself talking about kneejerking, ignorance, bonehead, denial, being isolated instead focusing on your arguments. That's just weak.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Wilczan said:

You  talk about no arguments and yet yourself talking about kneejerking, ignorance, bonehead, denial, being isolated instead focusing on your arguments. That's just weak.

I brought up the arguments for the proposal from beginning. So far you only said that it is as it is and you don't like a change. That is what I call boneheaded.

 

The issue is that a mayor dropped out, that may be due to loss of internet connection, computer, even sickness or death, or more harmless just having lost interest in the game, or just having forgotten about for a longer while due to more pressing issues iRL. .

 

The recent situation is that the villagers are left with a deed that will drop, which they do not want or like. There are always a number of tasks which require mayor role so absence of the mayor is causing problems.

 

Of course the villagers have ways to work around, letting the deed drop, having created an adjacent deed to secure the penned livestock first (and taking all now unbranded animals over there). They may take all structures owned by the former mayor in perimeter, and take all items once the first wall falls. They may extend over their own buildings granting the new creator management permissions. They then have to restore alliances and so on.

 

The consequence is some turmoil and destruction, and the former mayor thrown out completely. There is no way to work around that. All structures s/he built would have to be destroyed and gone. So there is not the least advantage to the mayor in the current situation. With someone else becoming mayor s/he would usually remain villager, keep the owned buildings and permissions on animals. and animal equipment.

 

To add that: The devs already cared for a situation with stranded villagers, namely the case that the mayor was permabanned.

 

So the question arises why villagers where the mayor vanished, maybe even died, should be worse of than those whose mayor was booted due to severe rule violations?

Edited by Ekcin
addendum
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sheffie said:

I think there would need to be an emergency upkeep fund, or escrow account, or Phoenix Fund. Call it whatever you want.

 

Because players would need to put money somewhere other than the regular upkeep fund, in order to take over and preserve the deed when its official upkeep fund runs out.

 

The downside of this approach is that the deed would still go through 30 days of decay before changing ownership.

The upside is that it would be 100% clear whether money was meant to preserve the original deed or pay for the new deed.

Another upside is that it would be 100% clear when the absent mayor's funding had run out — meaning that they no longer had any moral claim to the land.

 

This sounds a lot better. There would have to be some way to make sure regular upkeep and escrow account would not be possible to be mistaken. But that shouldn't be too difficult to code. Different option at token/character panel than add to upkeep and warning message about it's meaning or something.

 

edit: Some other questions still remain. For example, who would be the new mayor in this case? The first one who put money into escrow account, the one who put in most? Voted by villagers as if it was democracy? But at least this is better than taking over just because of absence and might be possible to make this into workable system.

Edited by Nestangol
Still some concerns
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to repeat that the solution proposed is already implemented for mayors permabanned as a sensible and working solution (the information by OR gave me the idea how to resolve the issues with orphaned deeds with villagers). The question is why villagers of a rule abiding mayor who just vanished (could even be by death in worst case) should be treated worse that those of a banned mayor.

 

Even the mayor herself (if absent by other causes than death) would be worse off. Banned players not that seldom get a reprieve after some time. If the villagers of their former deed did not kick them they may even relog in their bed at the time the banhammer hit them.

 

A mayor who was hindered to access Wurm for causes out of her control will wake up in an alien environment if the villagers did not keep up the deed during her absence. S/he will even not be villager anymore, out of the alliance, all buildings and structures erected gone, no more rights on any of the animals.

 

The question who will be the next mayor is resolved by ballot in democracies. I never held a democracy deed so cannot say how that is done, and whether the appointed mayor has the same powers over all villagers as in a non democracy (I assume that is the case).

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Wilczan said:

You just add to upkeep then.

There is much more that needs doing in a deed and more so a community pve deed then just adding to upkeep to stop the village going away.

The mayor is very important in that they are the pillar of strength for that community. The mayor has the power to destroy buildings, access homes, manage perms, hire guards, resize deed, create roles and build/guide a vision for the village. 

Without the mayor, the deed is just a shell of its former glory.   Lets not forget that many people on PVE servers have giant castles, ###### loads of items and massive investment in their location/community.

 

This is why it is so important to have a mayor or a replacement mayor. Also the time limit is quite long so I am sure that in that time, any villagers around will decide who gets to be mayor when they get to switch to a democracy.  Even more so if it is a strong community.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this