Sign in to follow this  
Ekcin

Let deeds change to democracy on long mayor's absence

Recommended Posts

On 10/4/2021 at 5:50 PM, TheTrickster said:

 I would presume that some kind of upkeep escrow would have to be involved.

 

14 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.

 

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.

 

 

 

7 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.

 

 

3 hours ago, Nestangol said:

 

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.

 

🤨

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One consideration:  normally, as I understand it, switching to democracy is a permanent switch.  Should this be reversible in this case?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, TheTrickster said:

 

 

 

 

🤨

 

I was responding to the original suggestion when responding to Ekcin. This one: It would therefore be sensible to let the deed become a democracy once the mayor was absent for, say, a year, maybe half a year. The remaining villagers can then appoint another player as mayor without the need to disband.

 

That included changing mayor before upkeep ran out. Huge can of worms that way.

 

Sheffie's solution is much better, but partly lost into rest of messages, which is why I responded to that too.

 

  • Cat 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, TheTrickster said:

One consideration:  normally, as I understand it, switching to democracy is a permanent switch.  Should this be reversible in this case?  

According to patch 040606 from 2004:

  • Voting should work better. Based on active players two weeks back, and the votes cast last week. Votes are counted as soon as you vote. If the number of votes cast last week is greater than 50% of the active players for a democracy or 80% for a dictatorship, the election is held and the mayor changes to the citizen with most votes.
  • Switching between democracy and dictatorship should work now.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah, cool.  It's been a while but from memory I think the dialog on creation is for a "permanent democracy".  Prob just needs updating.

 

EDIT:

 

2004?  From when "dictatorship" could still be elected out?  Actually, that could be just the mechanism you are looking for.   Nonetheless, I wonder if that is still accurate, regarding switching.

 

Will see what I can find....

Edited by TheTrickster
wait a minute....

Share this post


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

 

I was responding to the original suggestion when responding to Ekcin. This one: It would therefore be sensible to let the deed become a democracy once the mayor was absent for, say, a year, maybe half a year. The remaining villagers can then appoint another player as mayor without the need to disband.

 

That included changing mayor before upkeep ran out. Huge can of worms that way.

 

Sheffie's solution is much better, but partly lost into rest of messages, which is why I responded to that too.

 

My point is I had already suggested "Sheffie's solution" before your first comment.

 

I don't think the intent of the OP was to take over before the Mayor's upkeep had run out, but once the villagers had been paying the upkeep for a period of time.  It wasn't explicit in the original, but I took it that way and it has since been clarified as such.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2021 at 11:06 AM, 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.

 

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.

 

 

This is my situation actually, I have deeds held by alts that hold deeds on more than one server.
Instead of bringing the Mayor alt with me on my upkeep rounds I have alts, on one of my deeds the Mayor probably has not logged in for half a year.
The alt I have for that deed is not even on that deed but on a deed closer to my other deeds, and I give him cash there to pay for the upkeep in the remote deed.
Now combine this with my low income and the just over 30 days upkeep I have every month.

 

How would the game keep track that it is actually me the player paying all those upkeeps on one alt or another and how will game know that the Mayor logged in for 2 minutes per month on another server?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not your deed - not your deed, if somebody deeds something and doesn't pick to make the deed a demo~ ruled.. so be it, their land!

If the owner is banned or haven't logged in 1-2 years, maybe.... borderline allow a gm after whatever email request to review and maybe set another owner, but anything else with pay partial upkeep or w/e .. is only opening more doors for shenanigans imo.

If you have to move.. you have to move, end of story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What is the point, then? If the owner is banned, a deed with villagers will turn to democracy, not maybe, but certainly. Not logged in for a year, or at best soemwhat less, is the case the proposal is covering, as most times upkeep is held within a 3-5 months range, and the villagers are assumed to have paid upkeep for a couple of months already to prevent falling of the deed.

 

And no, the villagers haven't to move, they may make the mayor's structures get destroyed by decay and refound the settlement. That is a crude procedure which many want to avoid, and which is a strong disadvantage for a returning former mayor compared to a banned mayor receiving reprieve. And there is no reasonable justification for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/6/2021 at 8:57 AM, Ekcin said:

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. 

 

So...  I am very much not getting that from...

 

On 10/3/2021 at 1:05 PM, Ekcin said:

As the title says. Sometimes the mayor of a populated deed leaves it for any reason, leaving the villagers behind. The only way for them to get rid of an absent mayor is letting the deed drop, with all unwanted side effects. They can only refound once the mayor's buildings are gone which may take a while. It would therefore be sensible to let the deed become a democracy once the mayor was absent for, say, a year, maybe half a year. The remaining villagers can then appoint another player as mayor without the need to disband.

 

From what I can see here is "if the mayor is away for x amount of time, their deed can be taken over by other villagers"; this is the suggestion I am replying to.

 

I am not unsympathetic to the problem you're trying to solve, but I think this will cause more problems than it will resolve; it's one thing for someone to essentially cheese ingame mechanics (using perimeter to clear a deed area), and quite another to have an ingame mechanic designed to achieve the same effect.  The latter is something that would be a nightmare for GMs to police, because how do they handle it if the mayor returns in short measure and contests it?  Do they recognise the mayor was a few days late on the rent; or do they recognise the player who used a legitmate system under "deed it or lose it"?

 

Your argument for alliances really just tells us we need to make alliance mechanics better, not relying on one central deed (why would you even do that, why would you exclude folks who don't live on a deed?!).

 

The only possible option I can think that might be workable (and trust me, that's not a fun thought) is giving a 1 day grace period on the day of expiry to "renew" the deed (it doesn't drop, it just enters the needs renewing period) which places a timer based on the highest QL house wall of the deed in the center of the deed; once that decays away (it decays on the deed at the same speed as the wall it represents), a new mayor can be chosen; if the mayor logs in during that time they are offered a choice to stand down, or resume mayorship.  This removes all doubt as to intention, and meets your desired outcome.

Share this post


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

My point is I had already suggested "Sheffie's solution" before your first comment.

 

I don't think the intent of the OP was to take over before the Mayor's upkeep had run out, but once the villagers had been paying the upkeep for a period of time.  It wasn't explicit in the original, but I took it that way and it has since been clarified as such.

 

I was responding to the suggestion. Not your post. And Sheffie is the first one in the thread who mentioned:

 

"However,  if you modify the proposal to only kick in once the upkeep has entirely expired "

 

You know, in that post you liked. And which had been going unnoticed by several people responding to this thread, myself included. Which is why I responded to her later, even more clearly presented post. If you need some sort of credit, yes, you were first to use the word escrow.

 

As for Ekcin, maybe you could add information to your original suggestion post to make it easier for people to understand your intent? Because it is clearly been read literally as written by most people now, myself included. Only minority seem to be able to read the intent of the post correctly. 

Edited by Nestangol
Quoting Sheffie post didn't work properly and couple "myself included "added

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Nestangol said:

..

As for Ekcin, maybe you could add information to your original suggestion post to make it easier for people to understand your intent? Because it is clearly been read literally as written by most people now, myself included. Only minority seem to be able to read the intent of the post correctly. 

Done.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Done.

 

Thank you. Though I did notice you still have no mention there about this suggestion only kicking in after the actual upkeep has run out. That I see as key for the whole thing as the only way to make sure mayor really has left and other people can have right to continue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 10/3/2021 at 10:05 PM, Ekcin said:

this is in no way meant to unseat a sitting mayor in a deed with upkeep fund provided before leaving. It only deals with deeds which would disband without the villagers keeping the deed up,

 

Quote

I did notice you still have no mention there about this suggestion only kicking in after the actual upkeep has run out.

 

I am really starting to think there is a language issue here.

Edited by TheTrickster

Share this post


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

 

I was responding to the suggestion. Not your post. And Sheffie is the first one in the thread who mentioned:

 

"However,  if you modify the proposal to only kick in once the upkeep has entirely expired "

 

You know, in that post you liked. And which had been going unnoticed by several people responding to this thread, myself included. Which is why I responded to her later, even more clearly presented post. If you need some sort of credit, yes, you were first to use the word escrow.

 

As for Ekcin, maybe you could add information to your original suggestion post to make it easier for people to understand your intent? Because it is clearly been read literally as written by most people now, myself included. Only minority seem to be able to read the intent of the post correctly. 

It isn't about credit it is about coherence.  Oh, nevermind...  I surrender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TheTrickster said:

 

On 10/3/2021 at 3:05 PM, Ekcin said:

this is in no way meant to unseat a sitting mayor in a deed with upkeep fund provided before leaving. It only deals with deeds which would disband without the villagers keeping the deed up,

 

Quote

I did notice you still have no mention there about this suggestion only kicking in after the actual upkeep has run out.

 

I am really starting to think there is a language issue here.

 

Maybe. Ekcin's clarification is step in right direction so at least people reading the first post may start to think options instead reading it as takeover after x amount of time (as the title says). But it is still not clear on what is "deeds which would disband without the villagers keeping the deed up".  If it means the same as quote below, why can't it just be said?

 

The other quoted way is clear. Deed reached the point where it would normally disband. Mayor no longer owns it anyway.

- > At that point some mechanic kicks in that prevents immediate disband because villagers have declared to keep it going and it changes to democracy.

 

If you wish to change game mechanic, the clearer the suggestion, the better. Doesn't matter if it is language issue or what ever. Game is played globally and people need to understand the rules.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, TheTrickster said:

It isn't about credit it is about coherence.  Oh, nevermind...  I surrender.

 

For someone who said "I don't really like to argue" I guess that was only half-truth.

 

You don't (just) like to argue, you love it.

 

I'm done with a troll. As soon as I find a way to put you on ignore you'll make the first one on the list, congratulations. Certainly best for me and any innocent bystanders.

edit: Found it.

Edited by Nestangol
troll ignored

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