Devil's Table Councilor/Writ System

[Xerah]

But you did just go onto Discord, and ask people you knew there, who are often from those crews, to come and read this post.

Um, what?

I'm unsure what relevance that is that you're referring to.

And you totally missed the context of why I said it, in that case.

[flower]

I always see this idea of a single ruler of the Table brought up on Discord, and always by followers of the Xal'rae/Ezrak/Mel'Nozz crew. I do not really think they need a greater monopoly of anything.

I don't know whats going on discord, but i got the very same feelings from observing what happens IG.


But it is also failure of others, being unable to form an opposition, and instead setting up multiple small factions which infight between each other.

[Sab1]

How would having one leader stop OOC coordination and OOC plotting to gain power? As surface shows it doesn't. Remember when a district was sold to Cordor? One leader doesn't fix the issue of a leader vanishing for long periods of time. How many times has Cordor seen their Chancellor go poof for long periods of time? More leaders means RP actually has to happen with leaders having to manipulate things to how they want it. One leader just means the person gets to do whatever they want without answering to anyone. Fix the voting system, where one CD key gets one vote total, not one vote per settlement. That right there will stop a lot of the issues by making people pick a settlement they really care about.

How is just one leader a lot more fun for most players then a council? It's just more fun for the person who gets to rule.

Just because all OOC organisation cannot be stopped isn't a good argument against changing something that regularly gives the need for OOC organisation.

Every leader has the potential to be an unhealthy OOC influence.

Each of the council of three has the potential be an unhealthy OOC influence - but in this case it's just about three times more likely.


I think everyone who is against the idea of getting rid of the council of 3 in the Devil's Table must ask themselves honestly if they believe that reinstating a council of three in Cordor would be beneficial to Cordor's RP. I honestly don't believe that anyone can say yes to that.

The point is saying ooc happens with a council, people vanish etc aren't very good reasons to remove it since that happens if it's one person or three. If one persom vanishes that's pretty much the entire government. To me this just seems some want to be surpeme ruler. Too much with elections topsiode and below is all plotted and planned ooc regardless of how many rulers there are. And least with a council more players can feel like they have a say.

[Batrachophrenoboocosmomachia]

Can we kindly take discussion of OOC and discord impact on council mechanics to another thread, and keep discussion of the mechanics themselves and potential improvements to them in this thread?

Please and thank you!

[Rwby]

I think it worth noting there is a large difference between the stance that the Devil's Table is not a 'Drow District' as stated by the Admin/DM team, and the fact it is currently run by drow.

Cordor is not a Waukeenian city, but it currently is ruled by a Coin. Just because the game is not designed in such a way as to specifically favour the drow in the Devil's Table, nor was it orginally intended that there be a specific 'Drow District', that's simply the way it played out, there is currently a district full of drow, in which lots of Drow RP takes place.

That doesn't need addressing, it isn't a problem, it's not meant to be a drowless district. It's simple a district, which can be ruled by drow, humans, or any other monster race - The same as the Sharps.

[Huschpfusch]

You would need actual preset jobs with actual real powers that you can't remove, but actually, I think that's an awesome idea.

e.g.: Trade minister.
Because a good proportion of frustration is probably due to one-seat-elected-governments moving in and waltzing ppl's shops and thus regular income on short-notice sort-of, handing them to... well, probably characters who in turn will support them in the next election.
(Dunno about how settlement powers actually work - it is only what I could gather so far from hearsay)

[BegoneThoth]

The problem with being forced to appoint someone you don't like, or someone you don't want to have in government, is that they can very easily sabotage you given any power they have. For example, a trade Minister could just set the buy and sell prices for coal to be in such a way that the city would bankrupt themselves by just giving money to everybody that bought and sold coal.

Forcing the political winners to give power to the political losers is just asking for trouble. As we see again and again.

[WinkinBlinkin]

You would need actual preset jobs with actual real powers that you can't remove, but actually, I think that's an awesome idea.

e.g.: Trade minister.
Because a good proportion of frustration is probably due to one-seat-elected-governments moving in and waltzing ppl's shops and thus regular income on short-notice sort-of, handing them to... well, probably characters who in turn will support them in the next election.
(Dunno about how settlement powers actually work - it is only what I could gather so far from hearsay)

YES!

[dominantdrowess]

You would need actual preset jobs with actual real powers that you can't remove, but actually, I think that's an awesome idea.

e.g.: Trade minister.
Because a good proportion of frustration is probably due to one-seat-elected-governments moving in and waltzing ppl's shops and thus regular income on short-notice sort-of, handing them to... well, probably characters who in turn will support them in the next election.
(Dunno about how settlement powers actually work - it is only what I could gather so far from hearsay)

Agreed, this is a large part of the reason why I'd like a system with less turn-over in the Table district. It does seriously hurt shop-keepers, which is part of the reason I haven't evicted anyone from their shops, and have put work into just nudging shop-keepers. This is something I have not done, expressly because I felt like it's both in bad-taste, and rapid turn-over and stability is bad for economics.

An issue with guaranteed jobs... which cannot be removed ... is that if a trade minister is not working, but cannot be prevented from running (and it's all done in one election) ... it doesn't work unless you separate all the required seats into different elections. Which would be an interesting way of doing it, honestly.

Mayor.
Trade Minister.
Sheriff.

Etc. Each as separate elected positions with pre-set powers..

The problem with being forced to appoint someone you don't like, or someone you don't want to have in government, is that they can very easily sabotage you given any power they have. For example, a trade Minister could just set the buy and sell prices for coal to be in such a way that the city would bankrupt themselves by just giving money to everybody that bought and sold coal.

Forcing the political winners to give power to the political losers is just asking for trouble. As we see again and again.

If we used a system of separate elections for each position? And everyone gets to vote on their choice for trade minister -and- mayor in their own settlement? Then we have a system that is based on merit rather than the immediate popularity of the primary candidate.

[WinkinBlinkin]

No, because then one faction would own all positions. That would not work at all. Every person from BIG CLIQUE 1 would vote for the Discord authorised person up for each position.

Let it be 1st 2nd and 3rd. And deal with the fallout.

[Atlantahammy]

You would need actual preset jobs with actual real powers that you can't remove, but actually, I think that's an awesome idea.

e.g.: Trade minister.
Because a good proportion of frustration is probably due to one-seat-elected-governments moving in and waltzing ppl's shops and thus regular income on short-notice sort-of, handing them to... well, probably characters who in turn will support them in the next election.
(Dunno about how settlement powers actually work - it is only what I could gather so far from hearsay)

Agreed, this is a large part of the reason why I'd like a system with less turn-over in the Table district. It does seriously hurt shop-keepers, which is part of the reason I haven't evicted anyone from their shops, and have put work into just nudging shop-keepers. This is something I have not done, expressly because I felt like it's both in bad-taste, and rapid turn-over and stability is bad for economics.

An issue with guaranteed jobs... which cannot be removed ... is that if a trade minister is not working, but cannot be prevented from running (and it's all done in one election) ... it doesn't work unless you separate all the required seats into different elections. Which would be an interesting way of doing it, honestly.

Mayor.
Trade Minister.
Sheriff.

Etc. Each as separate elected positions with pre-set powers..

The problem with being forced to appoint someone you don't like, or someone you don't want to have in government, is that they can very easily sabotage you given any power they have. For example, a trade Minister could just set the buy and sell prices for coal to be in such a way that the city would bankrupt themselves by just giving money to everybody that bought and sold coal.

Forcing the political winners to give power to the political losers is just asking for trouble. As we see again and again.

If we used a system of separate elections for each position? And everyone gets to vote on their choice for trade minister -and- mayor in their own settlement? Then we have a system that is based on merit rather than the immediate popularity of the primary candidate.

I'd actually like this for surface settlements too! Voting for each position, that way it wouldn't just be people replacing the whole government with people they know.

[BegoneThoth]

@drowess

Forcing separate positions like that will only cause more non-functional government. Anyone with any government control at all can utterly torpedo an administration, and it's best if whomever gets singularly elected can pick their own people.

One alternative? Force a joint ticket where you must put three names in and people vote for a trio. That way there is still a council but you arnt forced to cooperate with your literal nemesis. That would actually make betrayals interesting, as if a member of a triumvirate betrays the other two, that means those other two actually put enough trust in the betrayer to put them on the ticket, and such betrayal would mean something.

[WinkinBlinkin]

Give some powers to person 2 and 3. Person 1 chooses WHICH powers get allocated to person 2, and which to person 3.

[BegoneThoth]

That will just result in people not granting any power to their enemy, meaning you might as well just have a two-person system with the third person being immune to Exile and allowed to do anything they want. Which is basically what's happening now.

[WinkinBlinkin]

How will HAVING to grant some powers to each of the two runners up result in not granting any powers to your enemy?

I'm thinking, you have to give one person the ability to be able to evict shop keepers, and the other, the power to exile and unexile people. But neither has the ability to access the bank account or evict residences, or set prices in the extended warehouse, unless you give ethem.

[WinkinBlinkin]

Oh, and the ruler -wouldn't- get those powers.

[WinkinBlinkin]

But maybe, they can switch which one gets to do what at any time they want. That would be very fluid.

[BegoneThoth]

And you can absolutely and utterly torpedo an entire Administration by exiling or releasing quarters in shops of people, or the alternative, un banishing all the troublemakers repeatedly. Which, again, is what I believe has been happening almost constantly for the past month or so.

[WinkinBlinkin]

My thinking is - if person 3 disappears, you can swap the powers back and forth between your ally (if they are your ally) and get everything you need done. If person 2 is not your ally, and person 3 has disappeared, you need another election to get anything done.

If you have 2 other present people, then you have to decide what you care most about, because your ally will be able to do it for you, but while they can act for you, your enemy will be able to act against you. And if you have two enemies, you are really pretty screwed.

[WinkinBlinkin]

And you can absolutely and utterly torpedo an entire Administration by exiling or releasing quarters in shops of people, or the alternative, un banishing all the troublemakers repeatedly. Which, again, is what I believe has been happening almost constantly for the past month or so.

Neither of these things torpedo an administration. You can only do that with access to the bank account or the pricing of the extended warehouse.

[WinkinBlinkin]

And make it so that only retiring from position 1 triggers an election.

And make these rules very CLEAR on the wiki, so that everyone understands how they work, which I think is a big problem at present.

[BegoneThoth]

And you can absolutely and utterly torpedo an entire Administration by exiling or releasing quarters in shops of people, or the alternative, un banishing all the troublemakers repeatedly. Which, again, is what I believe has been happening almost constantly for the past month or so.

Neither of these things torpedo an administration. You can only do that with access to the bank account or the pricing of the extended warehouse.

It really makes your Administration look poor, when all the people that voted for you are suddenly evicted and kicked out of their house and lose all their possessions by the one person you were forced to appoint to your counsel.

[WinkinBlinkin]

Makes you look bad is good rp.

[BegoneThoth]

Makes you look bad is good rp.

OK I think I'm done here.

[reighbo]

No, because then one faction would own all positions. That would not work at all.

That is the very issue i'd see ... IF 2 out of the 3 elected Devil's Table positions were taken away.
Just so long as it remains a Drow controlled settlement. (IF)
As is/has been.

THIS seems near ideal,

the one-seat and 3-seat system there could be an actual compromise version:
One-seat system where the winner of the election has to take Nr. 2 and Nr. 3 from election on for job in their government.
This would feel closer to the first-house-leading-culture than the 3-equal-seat-councilor-thing.
Maybe would be interesting for other settlements as well, since I guess a lot of tension between players is due to the fact that it is all-or-nothing elections. So maybe a system where Nr. 2 and 3 also get a tiny portion of the powerpudding would reduce the level of verbal dung flying between ppl/factions and increase the lifespan of governments-elected.

FOR Drow ...
As its a better incentive for a possible 2nd House to STAY rather than face exile & eviction for trying ...
I'd like too have seen that "tested" within the Sharps, before its change to 1 elected winner ...
However would it be the same/have the same results or even seem/feel less suited, among the more mixed races ...?

Drow Houses might even be more likely to unify at the threat of NON-DROW, even politically ... in efforts to keep say a Goblin/Kobold/Orog/Gnoll/Ogre etc etc. from TRYING to actually GET elected within the Devil's Table ...

Its true that many NON-Drow dwell within the Devil's Table, sum even rent places and shops, ... others will even vote.
YET,
Very few have even tried to run/win, within any Table election's, thos even being,
1/2 Elf-Drow or Human (Outcasted).
A Kobold might have by mistake? yet was also was warned in the RP to drop-out.
Then did.
The Non-Drow that won ... also had MANY Drow to VOTE them in, and had much Drow support to do so anyhow.

Perhaps now too many of the other races see the Devil's Table as a Drow's mess, so should be more Drow fixxed/handled IG.
By ... well, the Drow, that is IF they truly wish it to be/remain their very own District ...?
The Drow do have the population(alone) required for the filling of 3 elected positions, ...?
Weather your IG "for them" or not ...
OR,
Are the other race's populations more required within the Devil's Table's election leadership system, to help keep these leadership positions both active and filled, and hense fourth better functioning ?