Going back to the old ways...

[HD52]

Please be respectful of others' opinions even if they differ from your own.

This is a very keen bit of wisdom and should be kept in mind by all members of the discussion.

[CragOrion]

I do think when discussing things like this, it can be good to avoid referencing specific IG events too much. Keep it general and put things in perspective. Otherwise, its too easy for the thread to devolve into fighting about IG events, as this thread is already starting to do.

[DarkDreamer]

I am trying to Craig.

[This is not for you.]

I like the One Chancellor system. I think things get done quickly, you don't get held up waiting for someone else and with the recent exile changes that make it so the zones are much smaller, it's very reasonable.

As someone who used to get exiled for- I don't know. Hanging out at Sencliff base. Or generally got the kind of "hey, you're exiled now. No we don't really want to RP with you further about it. Just get out." treatment from past guards, I learned to get around it. I yowled and threw rocks and organized support and started plotting against people that got me in the hot spot. This issue that you're referencing is not a new problem. This has been a Constant problem that has Always been a thing, 3 councillors, 1 chancellor, corrupt, uncorrupt.

Vivian was stone walled from even getting anyone to genuinely talk to her for a long time with the old Cordor group. And anyone that talked to me *cough*shauna*cough* Also got exiled for guilt by association. Which wasn't Amazing, but hey. I pushed anyway, threw rocks, haunted lowbies, found other places to RP at. (Oh and after I got past the initial knee jerk reaction, I ended up having a lot of fun with the conflict)

If you feel like you're being mistreated oocly, maybe you should take a step back, breathe, and maybe talk to the other players that you don't feel amazing about what's going on. Talk to a DM about what you can do to better your situation. Talk to people outside your safety bubble to get an outside third person perspective.

[CragOrion]

I think the main complaint about the council system revolves around things not getting done when ppl go absent.

It WAS common for one of the councilors to disappear, or just have different hours than the others, and then everybody assumes that councilor has dropped off, when they just live on the other side of the planet and keep different hours.

However, the old system was getting better because people were coming up with ways to work around the problem. They could have other city officers weigh in and make a decision, and most decent councilors would know to work together. They'd move past issues they knew they wouldn't agree on, and focused on what they COULD get done. So having two councilors left can still definitely work. I've seen it work quite a bit.

Now yes, having two councilors drop off really messed things up the few times I saw it happen. But there were ways you could deal with that too. The easiest solution being to resign and kick off new elections. Just run in the new elections (i'm aware that old laws prevented resignees from running again, but it wouldn't take much work to put a stipulation on it that if youre a lame duck councilor, then you can still run again after triggering an election)

EDIT:

If you feel like you're being mistreated oocly, maybe you should take a step back, breathe, and maybe talk to the other players that you don't feel amazing about what's going on. Talk to a DM about what you can do to better your situation. Talk to people outside your safety bubble to get an outside third person perspective.

I agree with this, absolutely.

Though I think the Pariah and unwelcome statuses used now do alot to stem these kind of bad feelings

I've felt bad before when exiling people who weren't being wankers, so when I do, other than giving relevant information to why it was originally done, I will do my best to stay out of their way if they try to go over my head to have it removed.

[This is not for you.]

I think if you speak to the other players after the initial knee-jerk reaction has worn down, you would find them very reasonable and forth coming to help you have the best time. Just keep in mind during the conversation that not everything needs to work out exactly in your favor for you to have a good time. Compromise is important, and so is being adaptive to the roleplay and the needs surrounding.

I also want to go ahead and say it, because I felt it was heavily implied here and I don't like that- that I really really like what the current IC government is doing. There's lots of planning, there's big change that's refreshing and interesting and different. There's conflict that's going on that (I think) is fun and interesting, the players are all very open to listening, and the characters are just as open to listening to input and making you feel included and important if you try to put yourself out there.

[DarkDreamer]

I wanna point out here, this is NOT directed at current IC things, while it may come across that way, thats not why I started this.

[Lady of Memes]

I was responding about Lady Meme, and actually I never brought in Mathais's personal exile.

It wasn't a personal bash. You can take constructive criticism how you want, but it definitely wasn't a bash. If I wanted to be mean or actually bash you? It would have been much, much worse.

[DarkDreamer]

I've tried to be cordial about this. But, frankly, I am tired of posts like this.

Another case of 'We lost an election oocly and so we're going to post on the forums of how we hate the system and want it to be the way it used to be'.

Because that ALWAYS works.


HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.


I would consider that pretty insulting and bashing for another person.

[This is not for you.]

I think we should lock this thread already. I don't think we're going to hit any great revelations here.

[DarkDreamer]

Or you know, rather then trying to stop a conversation you don't like, try putting some ideas in to try and make it better?

[Orian_666]

Its not really a conversation though is it, one side is saying they dont like the current one and want the old one back, the other is saying they prefer the new one or just leave it as is.
Personally i couldnt care either way but this is just a relatively civil argument, not a conversation.

You want the old system back? Make a suggestion on the suggestion forum with the whole thing in great detail, Pros Cons, and how you'd go about implementing it as well as why.

If it's something the Devs agree with then great, if not then too bad, but this thread has simply devolved into a back and forth that is going nowhere.

[Lady of Memes]

I've tried to be cordial about this. But, frankly, I am tired of posts like this.

Another case of 'We lost an election oocly and so we're going to post on the forums of how we hate the system and want it to be the way it used to be'.

Because that ALWAYS works.


HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.


I would consider that pretty insulting and bashing for another person.

It's called sarcasm and a joke. I'm sorry if you felt offended?

[Ecstatic]

While you guys haven't hit the lock threshold yet, this thread started off on a pretty bad footing, and the first page of posts didn't help that.

Consider this a warning. I will lock the thread if it doesn't turn around.

I don't want to see anything that even resembles OOC fighting about IC events. I don't want to see people treating each other with disrespect. And I don't want to see non-constructive venting.

If you think things should be changed, write a thoughtful post to the devs explaining why you think things would be better done another way. This post should be written as devoid of emotional investment as possible, and should offer a clear rationale as to why it is worth trading one set of drawbacks for another, so the dev team can consider your input. I do not believe this thread meets those critera, as all parties involved seem to be dealing with the aftermath of an IC event with which I personally am not familiar.

Or you know, rather then trying to stop a conversation you don't like, try putting some ideas in to try and make it better?

My comment here is completely unrelated to the above topic, but this statement touches lightly on a personal peeve, so I'm going to take the time to address it:

When people offer a lackluster suggestion (not saying that yours is), or run into disagreement with their suggestion (which is definitely the case here), they will frequently call on the source of the challenge to provide an alternative suggestion. This is a bit of disingenuous rhetoric, because it presupposes the need for a change, which might not be a point that all parties agree upon.

It is perfectly fine for someone's thought out stance on a suggestion to be "I think this is a terrible idea and we should go nowhere near this" or "I think the current arrangement is pretty good actually". Sometimes a suggestion is most improved upon by consignment to the dumpster, and it's alright to feel that.

[DarkDreamer]

that comment was made on the ideal of " Lets just lock this thread"

[Miaou]

In before the



(until HD ruined it <3)

[CragOrion]

No, its insulting because you're accusing people of pridegaming, rather than considering what they had to say, or letting others consider what they had to say.

That's why both she and I found it offensive.

[HD52]

Please be respectful of others' opinions even if they differ from your own.

Please be respectful of others

Let's keep this in mind for the sake of the Devs and the topic. Back on track, I do have a question. I have only experienced the current "one-leader" system. What are the pros and cons of multi-leader systems against the pros and cons of single-leader systems?

[DarkDreamer]

One of the biggest pro's is that if you feel that one is being completely corrupt, you can ask the other two to consider the matter and vote on it. If they feel the matter is corrupt, they will vito it via a vote.

[HindianaJones]

That's more of an IC thing though. Shouldn't we be considering the OOC perspective if we're discussing a mechanical aspect of the server on the forums?

Edit: Just an example to be clear about what I mean. DD raised the point of multiple leaders voting on an issue. There are pros and cons to that argument. One pro might be it provides more IC democracy. One con might be that it slows down the process of government because it requires 2-3 players to be on at the same time to get something done.

[HD52]

Ok. I think that we can view both IC and OOC pros/cons. It may add to a stronger discussion.

I will edit and tag back to this as it goes with (IC) or (OOC) tags. I will avoid using hypothetical situations or repetitive points where a single note will suffice.

SOLO-LEADER SYSTEM

Pros
1. A single leader allows for smoother delegation and can get roleplay moving faster (IC/OOC)
2. Easier to handle rulebreaking between solo-leader and DMs rather than chasing down multiple leaders over the same ordeal (OOC)
3. Easier to oust a solo leader than it is to oust multi-leader alliances, esp. through mechanics via assassination squad (OOC cause, IC result)

Cons
1. Can lead to capricious/abrupt activity if solo-leader does not create divisions to aid in city-leading (IC)
2. Can result in less "politically-generated roleplay" due to not having to communicate with anyone before making any changes (IC cause, OOC result)
3. No mechanically-enforced designation to represent multiple factions, which can result in only one or two choice factions wielding political power per term (OOC cause, IC result)

MULTI-LEADER SYSTEM

Pros
1. Political leeway for neutral/good characters to directly combat/stall out "corrupt motives" OR for neutral/evil characters to directly combat/stall out "charitable motives" (IC)
2. Potential for various interest groups to have discreet council votes, when it works well, you get disparate groups coordinating through their elected representatives. Agendas require a consensus of two of three groups to pass. (Quoted word-for-word. IC)
3. Mechanically-enforced multi-representation in political roleplay (OOC cause, IC result)


Cons
1. Stalling out corruption can result in term-long filibusters between leaders (IC)
2. Agendas require a consensus of two of three groups to pass. Sometimes, this means nothing ever gets done, because either no party negotiates, or equally likely, quorum becomes difficult to obtain as one or more councilor disappears or they all live in different timezones. Strong leaders often can't get anything done because of much more lackluster obstructionists. (Quoted word-for-word. IC)
3. Everyone agrees and there's no point to multi-leadership OR nobody agrees and the entire term stagnates (IC)

QUOTES

I think the most pertinent point to be made is the matter of choice. A good councillor will delegate anyways, whether he is a single one or part of a triumvirate. But when you are the sole councillor you can choose out people who make sense and can actively contribute. In a multiple system they get chosen for you. And I've seen many, many cases where one or two councillors are just borderline inactive.

It should be noted that for the last few multi councils, the third and sometimes second councilors were basically chosen BY default

I have never seen a grey area - I think it provides interesting opportunity for a triad of politicians to debate amongst each other until eventual compromise, but as far as I've seen moral/viewpoint lines are too stark for any sort of meaningful compromise. The "interesting opportunity" I mentioned is, while the golden optimal happening I'd like to see come from this system, something I've never seen actually happen.

In every case where three leaders has become one I think general "getting-stuff-done"ing has flourished or otherwise improved, both in Cordor and the Sharps.

Not to naysay, but the assassin system does remove people from their political positions. There is an IC and mechanical means to deal with corrupt government(unless its in brog or myon, but that is an entirely separate can of worms). ...

... If you have a problem with a settlement leader, consider raising the asking price. 100-300k for a high profile kill is a lot more worth the trouble than 40k to attack someone with guards.

A single councilor (Chancellor) means they can delegate things easier, and when a swift choice needs to be made to get roleplay moving, they can do it without waiting.

Currently, there's tons of delegation going on and it's cool. There's an ambassador, vice-chancellor, and trade minister all helping run the city. It's cool, and I have seen them all active in doing their own thing. They all have their own thoughts on how things should be and it's neat as hecks.

I originally coded settlement powers precisely to allow unfairness and abuse of power. That sort of thing breeds story... there's a reason most books have the heroes lose in act 2 only to come back and win in act 3. Whichever side you're on, you should face defeat and win victories to give the story meaning. ...

... Through something bad happening to the group, they have an event to react to, something that will generate more (and more focused) RP. Enemies are a -good- thing, and RP is often -improved- by a material setback.

[Lady of Memes]

<3 HD

[HindianaJones]

I guess what I meant was that from different character's perspectives, any of that will be a pro or a con. But now that I mention it... That's pretty true for player's perspectives too so.. I don't know! XD

[gilescorey]

The worst thing to me, albeit as someone who's only played a single Councillor in the Sharps and not in Cordor, was both the fact that there wasn't quite enough "room" for a triumvirate.

In my admittedly limited experience it ends up two ways:
1. as less an interesting conflict of powers and more a mechanical "lock," where no side can really do anything due to writ requirements, creating a boring stagnancy where nothing gets done

2. Everyone agrees with each other and everything gets done - in which case, why have three leaders at all?

I have never seen a grey area - I think it provides interesting opportunity for a triad of politicians to debate amongst each other until eventual compromise, but as far as I've seen moral/viewpoint lines are too stark for any sort of meaningful compromise. The "interesting opportunity" I mentioned is, while the golden optimal happening I'd like to see come from this system, something I've never seen actually happen.

In every case where three leaders has become one I think general "getting-stuff-done"ing has flourished or otherwise improved, both in Cordor and the Sharps.

[Durvayas]

People have tried to deal with it ingame, the difference is that with the current system, players that make chancellor are basically gods, commander tries to stop you, their afraid of being immediately fired, wanna suggest a system that can vote out things that the chancellor is being corrupt on, instant NO. There is no way to stop them, they become gods and tough shit for anyone that doesnt like it cause if the king didnt like it, he would do something about it.

Not to naysay, but the assassin system does remove people from their political positions. There is an IC and mechanical means to deal with corrupt government(unless its in brog or myon, but that is an entirely separate can of worms).

The assassin's guild suffers from a few problems. The guild building in Andunor is a joke(literally a message board behind a locked door, that's it). The class is a joke. Taking five levels of it to even use the assassin's guild is actively damaging to their ability to do their job. The NPC merchant in the guild is a joke. The sole saving grace of the assassin's guild is the guild hall is immersive and cool, but an interesting guildhall does not a class fix make.

The guild is almost entirely unused. And I can think of maybe, maybe, 3 assassins active, and my PC is one of them. The average bounty on someone's head is between 20000-50000. Usually, these bounties are not worth the trouble of finding the target, infiltrating their settlement, the wards you're going to use in combat, and the very high chance that when you RP with your target before an attempted assassination, they're just going to engage you right then and there rather than let you get the drop on them.

If you have a problem with a settlement leader, consider raising the asking price. 100-300k for a high profile kill is a lot more worth the trouble than 40k to attack someone with guards.

If it were possible for contracts to stack, and the amount on a PC's head to be increased after a bounty has been placed, then you might see more people think of assassin as a worthy class and RP route to take, but as is, if you put 10k on someone when they're a lowbie and they don't get assassinated, they could become a mass murdering genocidal maniac in high epics and you won't ever be able to raise the bounty on them until someone collects the 10k on their head.