Deed Votes.

[Wraithglow 787]

The wiki, like most wikis, is community-updated. If you find an article that is wrong, you shouldn't be thinking "look how terribly inaccurate the wiki is" you should be thinking "I'll fix that so that nobody gets it wrong any more".

The fact is most people are too lazy to do it.

Back on topic, I say make dictatorships true dictatorships! No voting allowed there

[Shrimpiie 3,665]

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.

Well before you think that it is the mayors fault, really think about how it would be if it happened to you. If it was your one deed, your whole footprint in Wurm lost. You would have something to say about it, and as vroomfondel already stated, many many players in Wurm don't know that this option is or may have been activated. This may be fine for PvP but for Freedom, there shouldn't be any war or fight going on about a certain property, just go somewhere else and build your own, it isn't that hard

Edited November 2, 2012 by Shrimpiie

[Shrimpiie 3,665]

Oops, double post

Edited November 2, 2012 by Shrimpiie

[Macgregor 46]

This is such a wonderful tool for griefers and scammers. Go around joining villages and find one that hasn't turned off the option for citizens to sign up new village members. Then get your friends to use their alts to join up. Vote out the unsuspecting mayor so now the scammer and friends own the deed. Disband. Get at least 5 silver. Find another poor sap. Do the same.

What I can't understand is how such a scamming tool has been permitted to exist and why more people have not taken advantage of a perfectly legal scam. Even if the deed couldn't be disbanded it could still be sold or held ransom.

This doesn't belong on a PvE server. It is so bad it begs changing.

On the flip side. It is the mayors responsibility to turn on and off the permissions. Seems to me your curiosity would have to be about zero to NOT check out all the little buttons and options available to a mayor. So even if the default were on it would be something you would notice. Then again, defaults should all be set to OFF. Never ON. But the responsibility still rests with the mayor.

[Hussars 511]

What really hurts, as mayor, I don't believe you can even use /vote to vote for yourself...

[Keldun 335]

Get this situation:

Citizen: can my friend join the deed?

Major: sure where is he?

Citizen: he will be online later.

Major: I'll be gone then, how about tomorrow?

Citizen: the same, can't I invite him?

Major: Well, OK.

Boom, deed gone.

That's what happened to Rocky and I can't believe that such is perfectly acceptable behaviour on Freedom, according to the GM.

[meiyeeer 78]

Rules changed = less work for GMs. Why do we even need to have voting? If a mayor goes inactive, just leave.

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.

They have *not* served wurm well so far, as evidenced by the uproar that's been caused by this.

[Macgregor 46]

Get this situation:

Citizen: can my friend join the deed?

Major: sure where is he?

Citizen: he will be online later.

Major: I'll be gone then, how about tomorrow?

Citizen: the same, can't I invite him?

Major: Well, OK.

Boom, deed gone.

That's what happened to Rocky and I can't believe that such is perfectly acceptable behaviour on Freedom, according to the GM.

Here is a lesson I learned long ago when playing an mmo:

Unless you can walk up to their real life door and smack them in their real life face, trust no one.

[RockyBalboa 565]

all your votes here for change will help all us to make more save community in future... i lost my pearl gms dont get my pinky pearl back ... is all my foult... so guy tip from rocky dont trust no one ... never... 1 deed per player is more fun then public deed.... for now

[York 16]

I voted in favour, It's not working as intended, deed owners either never invite others or start having to add more and more alts just to ensure they cant be voted out. If deeds didnt cost real money I could understand this feature but because they do, there should definitely be an option to completely protect your investment.

[singleblackmom 3]

Yes. Maybe not on epic, but DEFINITELY on freedom.

[Ruger 610]

This thread should never die until something is done about it. +1 to the idea.

[RockyBalboa 565]

i think same... +1 ruger

[Kadore 926]

It would save hassles trying to do the math to figure percentages of how many you can invite to your village to not go over the 80% cap while still allowing multiple villagers to invite players to the deed.

I think Atlantica Online is the only game I know of that allows guild ownership to change hand via votes, most games I've played the person that starts the guild is the owner, if you feel you don't like the leader you leave.

Why is preserving a deed via a new Mayor so important when deeds disband all the time due to Mayor inactivity, as it is anyone can donate to upkeep and you can have a non Mayor make every decision via settings as it is, if you so choose.

[Elen 1,013]

Village type : Monarchy -- no voting allowed !

[Shrimpiie 3,665]

Well this is a problem that has been around since the beginning of the game, it shouldn't be that hard to add another option should it?

[Crack 408]

The fact theres RL money involved in a deed makes the fact that the mayor cant turn this system off pretty much unacceptable. Its obvious the vast majority of Freemdomers want this gone and i believe its only right that its removed asap. It only damaged the community spirit of wurm and personally while im paying to play this game theres certain things id expect, such as some level of security.

[Aldur 651]

This voting system will never work correctly and that's why I believe it should be disabled entirely, at least for dictatorship. Even if there was a switch to allow such voting, even for specific citizens... what would be the point? The only people I would allow would be my friends and that is completely unnecessary since they are my friends and I would just give them the deed anyway if necessary.

The only way to resolve issue of "mayor abuse over citizens", is to redesign deed system itself to be more community-friendly. Fixing resize issues, perimeter overlapping, rights management for allies are good examples of what is really needed and would allow everyone to have their own deed without getting in each other way.

[Dragonmob 18]

Wurm team very rarely look at suggestions section, they never comment anything for example. This is, however, very important as this is severe security problem which can lead to deed loss.

They should fix this, if nothing else. It's clear that it should be fixed, and it's not even hard to.

If Wurm team doesn't do anything you can clearly see that they do not care about this.

[Alyeska 2,621]

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

Hah, so what about a "smart" mayor who does protect his deed properly by always having more alts than citizens and not allowing anyone to invite, and he suddenly goes inactive? Regardless of how much work his citizens put in - deed still dies, so your point is moot.

[Wraithglow 787]

Dragonmob - you have no way of knowing if the dev team look at these forums or not.

Alyeska - the deed doesn't die if they pay into the upkeep. it continues exactly as before so i don't see why ownership would suddenly need to change hands just because the mayor hasn't been in the game recently.

[Keldun 335]

Enki's PM to some concerned people:

We are discussing some things about the issue that even the general players would like to see adjusted. Once we have something workable we will talk to Rolf, however you are free to post a suggestions and ideas thread regarding voting.

Voting is important. Even in a dictatorship. that mechanism is often used to save dying deeds, everyone needs to understand how important it is to be able to not lose everything.

Mayor goes missing - citizens can lose security or even access to everything over time as no one is able to control settings.

Mayor abandons deed - leaves citizens unable to work as originally planned.

Mayor abuses citizens - leaves all the work to the citizens only to kick them and steal all their work and items.

Mayor gets banned - We do not transfer deed control to anyone. Voting is only option if possible.

There are many other reasons that have crept up in the past that required the citizens of a deed to take action against their mayors or be forced to abandon all work there and leave for elsewhere.

Yes it needs to be looked at, perhaps some form of new system or simply a change in who is allowed to vote and how?

(This message is being sent to multiple people requesting info on this topic.)

I say fair enough, except for this part:

Mayor abuses citizens - leaves all the work to the citizens only to kick them and steal all their work and items.

The opposite is more important. Usually it's the Mayor who solely secures the spot and pays for the entire deed and upkeep. So:

Citizens abuse mayor - letting him pay for the deed only to kick him and steal all his money.

I would consider something like that a fair trade, mayor pays the money, citizens do the work.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Keldun

[Alyeska 2,621]

Alyeska - the deed doesn't die if they pay into the upkeep. it continues exactly as before so i don't see why ownership would suddenly need to change hands just because the mayor hasn't been in the game recently.

Which is my exact point. There is no need for the ownership to change hands like some people advocate, if the mayor goes missing. Becuase he can already protect himself from being voted out when this happens, it means it will only be there for the people who simply do not want to use dozens of alts or want to give their dear citizens more rights.

If the mayor goes missing, gets banned, whatsoever, then citizens can proceed to dowhat they do. They can put in upkeep as they desire to keep the deed alive, there is ismply no need for them to have the settlement form. This is only a window for abuse. They remain with the same rights they always had - which is what the mayor of the village gave them. I'll say, if you don't like the rights or lack of them, you can always leave. You know the risk when you built on someone elses land.

[Dragonmob 18]

Wraithglow, yes, I could have said " I assume", but do you see that Wurm team would have done something we have been talking about at suggestion section?

Wurm team is mainly making new servers and graphics, occasinally something random like Karma, but I haven't seen anything people have been talking about at suggestion forums. (If you do not count graphics.)

Edited November 4, 2012 by Dragonmob

[Keldun 335]

I propose something like this:

Dictatorship

Mayor sets up the deed on his own

Citizens join and leave at his discretion.

Every Citizen can "question his rule" if the mayor does not respond for a while (3 month?), or allows for it, a voting starts.

Mayor can name a successor, if one exists he takes over without voting.

That way the mayor is sufficiently protected, but the settlement isn't in risk of permanently loosing it's mayor.

Democracy

Mayor can turn the settlement into a democracy.

Voting can only be done by "full" citizens

Full citizenship can be achieved:

• at the Mayors discretion
  
• by vote (optional)
  
• by paying a share of the deed cost (adjustable by mayor and optional)
  

Full citizens can only be kicked by vote.

Edited November 4, 2012 by Keldun