Deed Votes.

[Shrimpiie 3,665]

dont wanna sound like a troll or anything but like the rules say securing your property is up to you, i think a deed can fall under that, make it so only you can add villagers and have an alt or inactive friends into your village... i have 3 inactive friends in my village and only i and co mayors can invite others... just saying i think they have that 80% vote out for inactive mayors

And like someone else said, you dont own land in this game you lease it from the king

i feel bad for what happened to rocky and that was a low move on their part but its part of the game :/

In the game you do own land on the Freedom Servers, Rockybalboa comes from Exodus, which is a Freedom Server, there is no king, so it really is his land that he made, and built from the ground up. On the Epic servers yes, there is a king but no Freedom. And this is the one instance where it's so ridiculous to even think that you would need to think about this happening, so yes, I'm sure he had secured his deed to the best of his abilities. There was no reason until now to have to think of securing it to prevent what just happened

[shadowblasta 142]

Im from freedom and there is still technically a king, hence why money from traders go to the king and they dont keep all of it

and no he didnt he allowed others to add members to the village and thats not secure at all

Edited November 2, 2012 by shadowblasta

[Keldun 335]

OK, I brought this up myself, but seems I didn't explain myself well.

There should not be any kind of system that can force the major out against his will. No matter how it's made it can and will be abused.

When someone decides to exchange shelter and support against labour he shouldn't have to be afraid to loose his deed.

However, when a major is actually friends with his citizens he will automatically give them rights and/or switch to democracy.

[shadowblasta 142]

like i said that has been implimented to give a village a chance of survival if the mayor goes missing

if you left yourself open to attack well... it happens, people are bad by nature and its a sad fact, everyone is greedy and wants more from someone else

Edited November 2, 2012 by shadowblasta

[san_tropez 394]

Part of the problem is that ownership is transferred the INSTANT you reach the amount of votes needed. So even if you are just offering a large enough group of players a place to stay for the night, they can ninja your deed without you noticing

[EliasTheCrimson 348]

If the problem that requires voting to be solved is inactive mayors then voting shouldn't be enabled until the mayor is actually inactive, I.E has not logged in for a specified number of days.

Edited November 2, 2012 by EliasTheCrimson

[Makarus 458]

No inactivity deal, I'd fall under that trap every summer for my work.

For people who want villages including more than a bare minimum of people, such as my own, i've got to make an alt for every new villager. i'v got something like 10+ registered accounds right now that i use, for this purpose.

rediculous that i've got to keep running tutorial every time i try to increase my villager count.

[Lulu 601]

I voted YES. True story.

[axeblade346 164]

+1

[Macgregor 46]

like i said that has been implimented to give a village a chance of survival if the mayor goes missing

if you left yourself open to attack well... it happens, people are bad by nature and its a sad fact, everyone is greedy and wants more from someone else

This is soooo lame. "left yourself open to attack". On a PVE server. LMAO.

If the problem is a mayor gone missing then why not just have an assistant mayor or acting mayor? They take over if the mayor goes missing but they don't get the settlement form. The ownership stays with the guy who actually owns the deed. It's lame to the extreme to make it possible for someone to STEAL something you paid money for on a PVE server. Let's just remove any and all rules and we can call it WURM EVE and let in all the griefers and scammers unhindered.

[leaf 283]

Already have Dictatorship or Democracy.

I don't see anything else needed. So either vote for leader or leader for live. Covers it all...

Edited November 2, 2012 by leaf

[Vroomfondel 1,128]

Look, this is a feature of the game meant for PVP and should remain on the PVP servers, but only there. After all, on a PVP server you can gather a group and attack the village, laying it to waste and draining the token till it disbands if you get voted out. All you can do on a PVE server is call to the GMs.

And Leaf, read the wiki on Settlements, you CAN get voted out in a Dictatorship. You have just proven again the biggest problem now, most people think that with a Dictatorship you are safe from being voted out, but you are not.

[leaf 283]

Wiki lies a lot from old data, I only read it once a year but update every month when i find bad info. Trusting wiki as 100% truth is very very bad.

The OP seems to be more concerned with absent leader and having the next rank in line become leader after a certain amount of time, with a ticket to the GMs. Which is standard in MMOs. But in MMOs you don't have to pay to start your guild/deed... If I want dictatorship and I paid silver/euro for it, villagers be damned.

If I buy a house and let you rent a room, you don't get to become owner by vote if I go on vacation. I pay = I own.

Edited November 2, 2012 by leaf

[Pollo 146]

The system probably needs to stay the way it is. I believe that currently an 80% "dictator" setting can be made. Along with this, citizen permissions can be set to No Invite, to prevent a hostile takeover unless the Mayor has allowed himself less than 20% control of the vote. In addition different levels of citizen can be made to allow for varied level of village permissions if needed.

I do not know what the default settings are, perhaps the default should be checked to ensure that noone except the Mayor has invite priviledges unless the permissions are changed.

In the case of absentee leadership, I would say we are SOL, although a support ticket should be able to be put in for possible change. In many cases, however, it comes down to money, in many villages the Mayor paid for deed and maintenance so I dont see how that can be taken away from him.

This is the sandbox of sandbox games. The system does allow for not permitting hostile takeovers.

If it somehow happened to me, I would probably quit the game, but that does not change my opinion that it doesnt need to be changed other than default settings.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Pollo

[Vroomfondel 1,128]

Wiki lies a lot from old data, I only read it once a year but update every month when i find bad info. Trusting wiki as 100% truth is very very bad.

The OP seems to be more concerned with absent leader and having the next rank in line become leader after a certain amount of time, with a ticket to the GMs. Which is standard in MMOs. But in MMOs you don't have to pay to start your guild/deed... If I want dictatorship and I paid silver/euro for it, villagers be damned.

If I buy a house and let you rent a room, you don't get to become owner by vote if I go on vacation. I pay = I own.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Vroomfondel

[leaf 283]

How is it a griefing tool?

Mayor allows citizens to invite people, or not. Mayor sets as dictatorship or democracy.

If a mayor allows all villagers to add new people and then 50 alts are added to village and mayor is voted out, why do the rules need to be changed? Who actually let this happen? Nobody forced mayor to change default settings and allow all villagers to add new villagers. Seriously, how often do you actually add new villagers - mayor can easily run a deed and control villager invites. Sounds like somebody got screwed legally and is now complaining about it.

'Deed it or Lose it' policy has more legitimate gripes.

Edited November 2, 2012 by leaf

[KunAlt 844]

I can´t believe really, how someone can defend a mechanic that allow someone stole the ownership of a deed of his true owner.

[Vroomfondel 1,128]

I can't speak of today, but when I bought my deed the invite others optoin was ON by default for all villagers, you had to shut it off in the deed settings. Most do NOT realize this is still on when they choose Dictatorship instead of a Democracy. There is only 1 small mention in the wiki that Dictatorships can still vote you out, and it is not under the Dictatorship paragraph, it is in the Voting paragraph. That may be ok for PVP servers, where you can gather an army and attack those that voted you out, but on the PVE servers you don't have any option to try to get it back except call on the GMs. Those of us who play on PVE servers play there because we don't want to be a part of any scheming and trickery like this. But there are always those that try to push the PVE rules and make it more PVP-like on these servers. They enjoy the fact that they can do things like this and not suffer repercussions, but won't go to the PVP servers where this is acceptable. I consider them cowards because of that.

As to the case I pointed out, they not only voted him out as mayor, they kicked him from the village and put him on KOS. That I definitely consider griefing. And incidents like this do not promote village life, it encourages being a hermit. I paid real money for the gold it took to set up my village, and I stay alone because I'm not going to take the chance on any drama like this unfolding. My only defense against this happening if I allowed a lot of villagers right now would be to create an army of my own alts to live in the village too, which is just a silly thing to have to do.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Vroomfondel

[leaf 283]

Here are the rules. They are very few and very simple. http://forum.wurmonline.com/index.php?/topic/7-game-rules/

If something is happening often, they make a new rule. If it is very rare (as this is), then you call a GM. If a GM can not fix it, they take it to a council of GMs for a ruling.

I'm not defending the despicable thing the person did. I AM saying that we don't need a new rule for every possible tiny thing anyone can possibly do, the simple and few rules have served Wurm well so far.

[Heroic 30]

+1

[Vroomfondel 1,128]

Here are the rules. They are very few and very simple. http://forum.wurmonl...c/7-game-rules/

If something is happening often, they make a new rule. If it is very rare (as this is), then you call a GM. If a GM can not fix it, they take it to a council of GMs for a ruling.

I'm not defending the despicable thing the person did. I AM saying that we don't need a new rule for every possible tiny thing anyone can possibly do, the simple and few rules have served Wurm well so far.

This isn't a tiny thing, and new rules can always be added. When someone takes the time to exploit a weakness in the rules as they have here, it is time to make new rules to counter their actions. It is part of human society that new rules/laws keep being made because new circumstances come up that need to be gotten under control before they get too far. We face the same problems in Wurm, and new rules get added as folks find ways to exploit the intent of current rules.

[joedobo 1,187]

Its unbelievably that players can still do this. Whoever payed for the deed should never loose control of it, plain and simple.

No more GM rules! For goodness sake implement the mechanic the OP mentioned.

[Hussars 511]

How is providing an option that disallows the ability for a mayor to be voted out of their deed, and still allows for citizens to invite others a bad thing?

How many deed owners checked their permission settings before vs. after this came to light?

What percentage turned off the ability for citizens to invite their friends/alts?

If more than 50% of the deed owners turn(ed) this option off, why not offer an option to disallow voting?

I'll agree there is a level of personal responsibility to ensure you have educated yourself to the best of your ability in the risks/rewards of owning a deed.

However, please also remember that while Wurm's official language is English, the native language for a decent portion of the player base is not English. So even if they have read the Wiki or in-game information/notices, they may still not understand the impact of their choices in which options they use and which they don't. In these cases, where it was a misunderstanding of terms used in a non-native language, who would you say is at fault? How would you help protect these people? How would you ensure people don't "hide" behind this as an excuse?

::Edit insert:: Before anyone implies I'm belittling anyone who is not a primarily English speaker, my points have nothing to do with intelligence, education or anything else except vocabulary. How many of us speak/read/write more than one language and can fully understand every word/phrase every time? ::/edit::

Edited November 2, 2012 by Hussars

[Vroomfondel 1,128]

There is also another issue here we are all kind of skipping over, the Wiki. Currently it is written and updated only by the players. No one is making sure all entries are 100% correct or up to date. In fact, many entries are suppositions on how things work, and I find them mostly incorrect or lacking in the details needed to do something correctly. The entry on Settlements is written poorly and the fact that you CAN get voted out in a dictatorship is only mentioned at the end of 1 sentence, under voting. If you chose a dictatorship you would likely not read the voting section, having assumed that as a dictator there would be no votes. So I think that not only do the rules for settlements need some adjusting, but it's time Rolf and staff reworked the wiki completely, and made it a proper guide with all instructions and rules up to date and correct. I know, some things are supposed to be discovered, and Rolf can keep those things out of the Wiki, but there is a lot that could be explained by him properly so we know how to get things done.

Edited November 2, 2012 by Vroomfondel

[Hussars 511]

The wiki always strikes me as currently a "fan" project and not an "official" source (even though I believe Rolf has added articles), we just all use it as such since there isn't a lot of formalized "official" content.

I seem to remember one of the PR team mentioning efforts to get the Wiki revamped/updated and accurate (well more so at least). I'll see if I can find the post...