Politics

[Axioma]

I took this from Wormtail_\'s post in the cultures topic. I think it was getting a little off-topic in cultures, but it had some realy good ideas.
             
quote:
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, it would be interesting to have player mayors in-game, but there are some problems. For one, if the game has this idea implemented into it, then when it starts, who will serve as the mayor? I would say NPC mayors would run for a time until a player wants to take over, but there are some problems with that. Namely, abuse of power and unworthiness. Also, I don\'t think that administrators should reward mayors. I think that the better mayors can have more abilities than \'bad\' ones as the people of the place like the mayor. As for really bad mayors, we can overthrow them. Rebellion! Oh yeah, and another problem would be how long a mayor is a mayor.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I think it would be real cool to start the game with the NPC mayors, and when the game is runing for let\'s say 2 months, we could have elections.

Then every 2 months a new mayor would be elected. And would there have to be a restriction on how many times you could become a mayor ?

It would be great. Like in real life, huge boards would be build, showing slogans of the persons who are running for mayor. There could be some real propaganda.

This would mean that in every town where there is an election there has to be someone that checks the propaganda slogans before they can be put on those boards, so that no unwanted messages or texts get on things the entire PS world can see.

Well, that\'s it for now. PS promised real-life economics and politics. Well i think we should make that come true, because it\'s a very interesting thin to deal with in a game.

Oh, I don\'t know if this has been discussed already, if anyone has any comments, or ideas, post here ^_^

[hook]

yea, i think that at some point it would be needed to have a mayor and guards ...the mayor would have to be elected. the simplest way would be an online poll, but i\'m for something INSIDE PS ...but that\'d be harder to implement (and even think of!) ...the guards would probably be set up by the devs/gods and by the mayor - they would have to have a consensus on every soon-to-be-guard

the guards would need to be paid and have superior items and \"experience\" to be able to make peace
about what the mayor could do i\'ve no idea yet ...but it would HAVE to be said

...just my 2 rubies

[beza1e1]

I think there should be a citizen mechanism, like the guild system now. You can become citizen of a city, otherwise you can\'t take part in elections. (you can only elect the US president if you are a US citizen)
The mayors tasks?
- Employ guards (chance to get money and items for doing a mostly boring job)
- Employ a librarian
- Manage the PK problem and create a peaceful place
- Peace means also between the guilds
- Projects to make his city famous (a newbie help program, olympic games competition, ...)

The thing with the world admins, who reward good mayors is just their way to make the world like they want
If a mayor acts like the chiefs like it, they reward him and others will copy it. Ok this could prevent evil citys for the bad boys...

[LordSpyder]

i think that is a great idea, i would love to see that!!!!!!

[Axioma]

If you are a citizen and/or you have ahouse in a certain town, would you have to pay taxes ? And what would be the requirements for becoming a citizen of a certain town ? Would there be profits connected to that in the entire PS world, only in that town, or no profits at all ?

[beza1e1]

It should be up to the mayor, if he wants taxes or gets money from other sources ... (dark, illegal business with the guilds, mafia-like?)
Requirements? hm ... having a bank account and a steady income? Having a house? Or do you have to be a citizen to get/build a house? Becoming citizen through relationships and payments should be possible, too.
Profits could be additional support (welfare system perhaps), security (guards for you, if you become enemy of a local guild), community (hello neighbor), power (manpower multiplicates)

[Axioma]

Could a mayor do these dark illegal stuff your talking about beza1e1 ? or would that be seen as corruption. Or is corruption ok in some cases , i think it should be in this specific one, because were talking about politics lol and it would greatly add to the atmosphere of the world we are creating. a lot more realistic.

[Badakai]

Well, corruption would solve itself, eventually. If the citizens don\'t like it, they either rebel or wait until the next election.

If the citizens however like a pirate-city, they would re-elect the person. If the mayor then gets too much power: rebellion!

Of course the news of the good or evil city would spread, and good people go to the good city and evil people to the evil city. Would be really great to see those cities develop. (evil cities could get darker textures?)
Where the good cities create peace by throwing the evil people in jail, the evil cities enforce peace by hiring an evil guild to do something to the annoying good-doing paladin who came to restore peace and found out too much. Banishment from the city perhaps (for a certain amount of time)?

Now about the election, i think the best way would be to create a NPC-clerk in an office or so who says something like: \"Who do you choose? Smith or Johnson?\"
Then you could just reply with the name you like. Almost like IRL.

[Axioma]

Yep yep. I like the election idea. Like say, two days before the elections all names of the participants have to be known, and then two wicked days of propganda start. Like the way you handle election system with the npc.

Maybe for the darker textures, in evil cities, i think i might have an idea. (But as always i have no clue whatsoever if it is doable, because ofm y lack of programming skills ^_^) Let\'s say you could mesure how evil a certain city is, by using some sort of counter on everything that happens there. Somehow you could distinguish good from evil acts right ? well then, as a city gets past a certain value in that counter, the amount of light that enters the city from the crystal is a little less, thus making it a lot darker there. Cna this be implemented easily, or not ?

[beza1e1]

I like Badakais election system. As a everything-should-be-done-by-the-players person, i even have to say a NPC vote collector is good here. There would be too much discussion about it, if this would be handled by a player. And NPC don\'t lie ... hehe i think cheating (in role play!) is still possible somehow ... why not.

The measurement of evilness is hard i think, but the idea is not bad Axioma. Perhaps they could somehow alter the textures. Make the wood a little darker, the walls not that white, ...
Perhaps just the gods should rate the evilness from their subjective point of view. No discussion.

[Thynett]

I agree that local government ruled by players themselves would be something greats, and that each town deserves some people to rule it.

Each town would have then a definite number of employees :
- 1 mayor/duke/count/lord
- a council (don\'t know what for yet, maybe for organising events in the city)
- 1 librarian if there is a library
- Guards (the bigger the town, the more the guards)
- Priests...

And those employees must be players, and they would get paid, be given a uniform, maybe some items... but items and uniforms would be removed when they are no more employees...

However I totally disagree with an election. Why ?
1/ A democratic system is totally anachronistic and doesn\'t fit a medieval-fantastic universe
2/ Elections are too easy to manipulate when there are so few people who would vote... You would only need to find couples of friends (easy to do with guilds, and by giving them money) that would vote for you, and the one with the more money/biggest guild is elected.


Then I have an alternative solution... Instead of choosing the ruling team by electing them, why not organise a tournament ? Every 2 months, a tournament for a town would take place. Every guild would be allowed to struggle, and the winner takes control over the town for the next 2 months.

The tournament could be different between 2 towns : 30 vs 30, 5 vs 5 or 1 vs 1 (the bigger the town the more fighters), or why not athletic competition : relay races, treasure hunt... Or  more original ideas : guilds have 30 minutes top bring back a mod to town. The one that brings back the bigger mob gets the town. Or poetry competitions... the possibilities are almost infinite, and can make realy interresting competitions where everyone could find one that would fit him.

Thus guids would play a REAL role in game, by controlling town. To avoid abuses, maybe there could be a limit : max 2 towns per guild.

That\'s it for the main lines...

[beza1e1]

Thynett i think your idea is as good as democracy.
1) the free cities in the medieval ages were democratic, but most parts of te land were owned by lords
2) Competitions wouldn\'t be fair, too. A arena fight between a barbarian and a thief guild? A treasure hunt wizards (scientists) vs adventurers? Even in a fight between to warrior guilds just the one who could hire the better mercenary would win.

But why should we want ideal democracy? It would just be boring as a competitor. If i take part in an election i want to manipulate, to pay for votes, to threaten my competitor or even let him killed by the assassin guild. This would give the impression of a real win, if i become the mayor.

The problems you mentioned: Its not a bug, its a feature! To say it the microsoft way ...

[Thynett]

1) the free cities in the medieval ages were democratic, but most parts of te land were owned by lords

I\'m probably wrong, but I never knew that. Some cities/periods/countries to name, so that I ca have a look in an encyclopediae ? (who knows, this game can mke us learn our own history ^^)

2) Competitions wouldn\'t be fair, too. A arena fight between a barbarian and a thief guild? A treasure hunt wizards (scientists) vs adventurers? Even in a fight between to warrior guilds just the one who could hire the better mercenary would win.

I didn\'t mean everyone would be able to win every competition. It is even the opposite. There would be so many different competitions that one would not be able to win all of them, but everyone would find one in which he will have his chance.
You have a powerful alliance ? Try the 30 vs 30 fight !
You always play with 4 or 5 friends ? Try the 5 vs 5 fight !
You are a weak hunter, but you know all the land ? Try  relay race !
You are a wizard ? Try the magic competition !
You are lvl1 but you know very well how to talk ? Try the poetry competition !
For some tournaments you will need to be rich and powerful, but there must also be many where intelligence, speed, or other qualities will be required.

Whereas for your elections as you desribe them, it will always be the same : the one with the more money/friends will win the elections.

To finish with, I se everywhere talking about guilds, but I still don\'t see any real goal for a guild; And this would give them one.

[beza1e1]

Just a link for democracy in the middle ages in short:
http://www.dadalos.org/int/Demokratie/Demokratie/Grundkurs2/Mittelalter/mittelalter.htm

Germanys free cities in the middle ages: K?ln, L?beck, Hamburg, Bremen, Magdeburg, Braunschweig

[Axioma]

I like the elections, and i like the competitions. Why not have both ? Depending on the city you\'re talking about.

And about the matches being unfair: if 2 guilds where to face eachother, and they weren\'t both guilds of the same type (e.g. barbarian, thief) they would both have to compete in a territory that isn\'t their own, thus giving them both fair chances.

And i still think that the corruption is part of the elections, it would make the game so realistic. (hoping that things don\'t get out of hand here...)