Going back to the old ways...

[Miaou]

As HD has saved the thread and topic;

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.

[CragOrion]

I think a better way to say what DD was trying to get across would be that, a big con is that many of the people playing don't feel that there is anyone that is representing their character's interests in the government and by effect, they are afraid their character is going to get stomped on, with little to nothing to say about it.

So, a pro to council is more representation, more ppl feel there is someone to voice their interests
a con for council would be the speed at which governmental changes are made (wars, appointments, law changes)
A pro for council would be increased RP due to couuncilors having to communicate before making decisions
Another pro for council would be increased rp due to more people feeling there is at least one councilor they find approachable
Another pro for council is that it would promote stability for a starting city
Another pro is that it gives an opportunity for more people to be involved in the rp due to the extra positions being available
Another pro for council is that it increases rp due to promoting transparency in the governent which in turn invites the gen pop to involve themselves
Another pro for council is that it gives a measure of accountability for the ruling body who might otherwise subvert the system to suit only themselves
Another pro for council is having a recourse if the gen pop feels one of the councilors is unfit (stonewalling, calling another election)


A pro for chancellor is the speed at which speed at which governmental changes are made (wars, appointments, law changes)
A con for chancellor would be less RP due to not having to communicate with anyone before making any changes
A con for chancellor would be lack of accountability
A con for chancellor would be lack of recourse if the gen pop wants the chancellor removed asap
A con for chancellor would be there is no-one left to run things if the chancellor becomes absent and hasn't appointed a steward
A con for chancellor is lack of representation for a large portion of characters

I'm sure I can think of more, but I have work in the morning

[Mithreas]

To be honest? I'm just gonna come out and say it. I like how the devs do things now. Nothing is perfect, but I have seem 200% improvement since Irongron took over. There is change. There's new players. There's movement. It's fun. It isn't fun to stay stagnant. I love you Mithreas, but I prefer Irongron's way of deving. I don't think those precautions were needed period. I understand being nostalgic, but change is good. It's healthy for a server. Stagnation = death.

I'm sure there are lots of people who agree with you, and I expect there are some people who feel the other way. No one style suits everyone. Suffice to say, I am perfectly happy with how the new team are handling things.

With that in mind, DarkDreamer and CragOrion, there is one underlying assumption to both of your positions that I don't think holds - and that's the assumption that IC characters should be treated with fairness/equality/due process. 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.

When I read posts along the lines of "character X ruined the RP that fifteen people had worked on by taking away our building" my immediate reaction is that the post is very short-sighted. 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.

[HD52]

Edited and compiled with current quotes.

[The GrumpyCat]

Mithreas has really hit the nail right on the head with his post, I can't really improve on it, save to add a few small points.

Of late we've had a few players frustrated because a faction they dislike has got into power, leaving them feeling powerless.

When something bad happens like this, then ask yourself, 'Alright, what can I do next that is fun?'
Not 'What can I do next to let me win?'
'What can I do next that is fun?'
If you aim to do something that if fun, then whether or not you succeed, you'll have fun. If you aim to do something to Win, then you're chances of enjoying the situaiton are limited.

If you find yourself in a situation, where there is no chance of you having fun then persue some of the following options.
a) Take your character to a new place, a new settlment, a new goal.
b) If that isn't possible, try playing a new character for a bit.
c) If that is not possible, try leaving the server entirely. Play another game. Go outside for a walk. Join another server even. Whatever you want to do, that you will enjoy.

Personaly I truly like the One Councellor system, and I like the destabalization it brings. I like that it can open the way for tyrranies, for quick decisions, for misuses of power. As Mith points out:

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.

[Mr_Rieper]

I still think it should be approached IC. Vote someone in who wants a council system, let them set up a council. That's all totally possible?

Ladies and Gents, we have a winner. I don't think there's anything more to say.

/thread

[Ebonstar]

My only thoughts on this is if you do get elected chancellor, make sure your a player who plays often enough in multiple times even if those times are just weekends.

I understand their is RL and work and everything else, but the current chancellor hasnt been seen in for the game is months since the election.

Why bother running if you cant be seen and actually work your post and take care of the needs of said post.

[HD52]

I understand there is RL and work and everything else, but the current chancellor hasn't been seen in for the game is months since the election.

This is a very direct wheedling. The current chancellor does have work and lives in an awkward time zone (Australia, isn't it?), but he has managed to log on consistently for at least an hour every day the past week- if we only keep current chancellor term in mind. In that hour, he delegates between other members of the political party and tries to make sure that all of the business is dealt with, especially if he can't be present himself due to a conflicting time zone.

That said, I do agree. If you do not have the playtime available for the position- regardless of the cause- you should avoid a position that demands a more active role.

[One Two Three Five]

My only thoughts on this is if you do get elected chancellor, make sure your a player who plays often enough in multiple times even if those times are just weekends.

I understand their is RL and work and everything else, but the current chancellor hasnt been seen in for the game is months since the election.

Why bother running if you cant be seen and actually work your post and take care of the needs of said post.

Man, this is kind of totally inappropriate? Expecting people to play like high schoolers out for summer is completely untenable.

Also I saw them on this morning what are you on about homeboi

[Sfoxwood]

There is a clear imbalance in this system. Negating which party is which for the sake of argument, party1has to organize people, schedual times for rp, spend in game resources and time, and step on eggshells around the system mechanics while the other has to type a single line and push a button. Party 1 spends hours or longer during this process, has a minimal to zero success rate unless they got about half the server on their side, and doesnt get signifigant rp from the events or their work being constantly destroyed. Its alot like one side has to build a house of cards in a tornado and the other gets to start with a house of bricks withone brick left to lay. I dont think the council route will solve it ooc. I think the whole gov and exile system needs an overhaul. There needs to be room for corruption plotlines without this kind of bs occuring and alot of that is going to fall on the players. So in summation the system either needs heavy moderation or mechanical support for anti establishment rp and no...waiting for the next election and trying to get a new person in is insufficient as the only option. And contrary to what one might think I really like the concept of ic exiles since it can generate sort of cops and robs rp situations for both parties allowing both to get some story and potential char dev out of it. Ooc exiles and gov stuff where the game mechanics enforce it do little to nothing for rp, in fact they shut it down mostly. Most of the char interaction gets diverted to fighting the computer, and rp isnt between player and computer its between player and player.

[One Two Three Five]

Kind've sounds like a 'things didn't go my way IC so I came to the forums' problem? If you think a system has been abused, the dms are probably better equipped for that than the forum, right? Editing out names and citing IC events step for step (as you see them, of course) isn't really an argument.

and that's the assumption that IC characters should be treated with fairness/equality/due process. I originally coded settlement powers precisely to allow unfairness and abuse of power.

Basically this is my whole opinion on it. Corruption/Cruelty isn't bad roleplay, nor is it mechanical abuse.

[If Valor Were Inches]

My only thoughts on this is if you do get elected chancellor, make sure your a player who plays often enough in multiple times even if those times are just weekends.

I understand their is RL and work and everything else, but the current chancellor hasnt been seen in for the game is months since the election.

Why bother running if you cant be seen and actually work your post and take care of the needs of said post.

Man, this is kind of totally inappropriate? Expecting people to play like high schoolers out for summer is completely untenable.

Also I saw them on this morning what are you on about homeboi

Having often led factions/settlements, its hard to be on all the time. I've found it limiting myself to not too many hours in the day has been nice to avoid burnout.

I feel like the expectation that a leader has to be on all the time isn't a good one, and that people often forget there are delegates below them they should try going to first (The chain of command sort of thing).

[Lorkas]

Cihparg has created a tool that can be used to see when someone has been active. More often than not, it isn't that they're inactive, just that you play at a different time than they do. Specifically, you can see now that the current chancellor of Cordor had a two-hour play session ending just three hours before this claim was made:

I understand their is RL and work and everything else, but the current chancellor hasnt been seen in for the game is months since the election.

Mostly though, please, quit calling out specific players here even if you're not calling them by name. Everyone here knows who you're talking about, and it's not cool. Omnipresence is not a pre-requisite for settlement leadership (though an effort to appoint officials that cover multiple time zones is appreciated, of course!)

If someone is genuinely hogging leadership positions when they aren't playing, vote them out. If you can't, report it to the DMs and if they agree with you, they'll do something.

[JediMindTrix]

Sounds like you used the hammer, now you should use the scalpel. @OP

[Seven Sons of Sin]

I'd love to see the Chancellery abolished, and instead -faction leaders petition to King Edward for authority, power, and gold. I've talked about this a lot, but bigger factions could have bigger say, and -faction leaders can become the King's Council and initiate votes on issues of exile, tax raising, etc, which would be mechanical options via Gerard, and then all other faction leaders could vote on it, with more weight depending on their % of the pie.

Like proportional representation, but Game of Thrones styles. The downfall of Cordor is there is no political space for coalitions or alliances (a commonality in basically all political history ever). There were hardly any either when we had 3 Councillors, too, as aforementioned posts state.

That would be cool. Who wants to be the chief legislator and problem solver anyways?

[Kuma]

I understand their is RL and work and everything else, but the current chancellor hasnt been seen in for the game is months since the election.

I've been refusing to post in this thread for what I hope are obvious reasons but this one right here is REALLY MAKIN ME DO A GOD DAMN THONK

That would be cool. Who wants to be the chief legislator and problem solver anyways?

Me? Its a valid avenue of RP.

[CragOrion]

Yeah...um, Kuma has been in game plenty, he just lives on the other side of the planet, yo, so has different play times than you

EDIT:
I also want to say that no, I don't think its a hard and fast rule that IC'ly, characters have to be treated with due process and all that. It can definitely be more fun in some ways when they are, and so, that's why I listed what I did in my pros and cons list. But to me, as I've said, the main reason I like the Council system better is that it facilitates a specific kind of RP that I love, that the one-person system does not, and it offers the chance for more people to become involved. To me, those are the biggest reasons to go back to it.

And I know how it looks, with me saying this just after one of my characters recently lost an election, but I can promise you that has nothing to do with why my stance is what it is. Was I dissappointed? Sure, but I channel that stuff through gameplay and don't let it affect OOC. Believe me, both Me and my character, ooc and IC are way past losing the election. If you pay attention, you'll see Kyle's become far more preoccupied with other things right now.

EDIT EDIT:
And I also want to make sure its understood that my stance in no way reflects my opinion of the current regime. Kuma's been very active, and he's gotten a lot of people involved with government, and his character has been very approachable in game. I think he's doing a great job right now.

[One Two Three Five]

The most amazing thing about this thread is that it's a thinly veiled complaint about one player, made by someone who, and I'm sorry, Darkdreamer, can't seem to keep their IC losses off the forum, and it's gone three pages without a lock, as if there's a legitimate discussion to be had.

[CragOrion]

The most amazing thing about this thread is that it's a thinly veiled complaint about one player, made by someone who, and I'm sorry, Darkdreamer, can't seem to keep their IC losses off the forum, and it's gone three pages without a lock, as if there's a legitimate discussion to be had.

Stuff like this isn't helpful. There clearly IS a discussion to be had because she is not alone in her belief that the Council would be a better system. If you don't like the council system, then please add to the discussion constructively. Trying to get it stopped because you don't agree with it is the very opposite of being constructive.


QFT

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.?

[One Two Three Five]

Council Pros: The first and second loser in the race get a say
Council Con: Stagnation
Council Con: Needing to run between three different people to get anything done
Council Con: Remember how when one person got in but not with a 2/3rds majority they'd just never log in, for a solid month, before trying again? Wasn't that fun?
Council Con: Difficulty/impossibility of playing a corrupt/immoral official

Doesn't change the intent of the thread and you know it. Don't spam your own 'please be respectful' quote while participating in what is openly, blankly, a targeted attack that happened to get taken seriously.

Edit: Council Con: Council Meetings

[DarkDreamer]

Er what, I hope your not implying this post is a targeted attack...its not.

[CragOrion]

I don't believe it was a targeted attack at all. Did DD make the mistake of citing specific things from in game? Yes, but I think she just had a hard time articulating what she wanted to say. For me, I can deal with that, because I know how to read between the lines and see what she's really trying to say. Others might not understand her well enough to do that, which is why I advised yesterday not to cite specific events. I'm not here to silence anyone's opinion or diminish someone's hard work or rp. I'm just here to give my input and try to make sure its taken for what it was meant to be. Constructive criticism and a point of view. That's all.

Some of us are trying very hard to salvage this discussion and keep it civil and moving in a fair direction, and belligerent accusations don't really help.

[dirza]

Could we please ever had a conflict not involving reset of elections, abusing bancrupcy, and people filling tens of reports every time they loose a thing?

[OverTheSeaToSkye]

The screaming irony is literally killing me rn.

[Durvayas]

I can't help but notice I seem to be the only one that thinks all the issues in this thread can be fixed with a healthy assassin contract on a chancellor or councilor's head.