Ok, how it is now, Nikua could do something that would totally fit in with what a Serenwilde leader should do, such as ban commune members helping revive the city, but he would be contested, because it infringes on the commune's rights to do whatever the hell they want to do.

Or, Rhysus could do something like ban Viscanti from joining his city, something that is understandable for the role of Celest. But some folks would consider this as hindering their enjoyment and contest him. (An example, maybe Celest would back him up on this, but not something else that fits.)

My point is, I like the way Imperian's leadership was run. The leader was uncontestable, for one reason. Leaders make decisions that not everyone is going to like. If you have enough people that don't see the bigger picture, the leader ends up getting removed from their position and everything gets undone, leaving a city where it started. In the US our Supreme Court have life time appointments, because there are times where they have to make a difficult decision and we don't want them to make a decision that they don't believe in just so they can stay in office.

I'm not saying give leaders lifetime appointments, I'm saying use the system Imperian has, where if enough people think a leader isn't doing a job, they contact the Patron and if the patron agrees with them, the leader is replaced. Auseklis set Serenwilde RP, he would approve of Nikua kicking out people trying to raise a city, I think.

Just as Isune is against Taint and would support Tainted people from joining the city, maybe even entering it.

Also, while on the idea of leadership, I really think Serenwilde shouldn't have one leader, but the 3 Guildmasters and two other people on the circle who are voted in by the commune.

Amazingly, I think you're right. We dislike some of George Bush's decisions (some of us) but we can't contest him at the drop of a hat. In fact, we can't -really- challenge him.

In the same way, leaders should be able to do things and not be kicked out every five seconds.

One problem with that. Richter reeeeealy wants Nikua kicked out of office. He sees Nikua for the reason he has so much trouble, just like he sees Daevos (and to some degree, Furloch) as the reason The Black Market just went down in flames.

This is another one of those times where our personal feelings, and our character's feeling and IC-ness conflict. A leader needs to be able to do what he needs to do to run the place, but our RL selves rebel against that.

Me and Richter agree on something?

I still don't like Alyvia though.

But yeah, it wasn't a bad idea.

Hmm... it'd be quite difficult to implement something like this. Certainly I don't think you'd want to rely on divine to kick leaders out and put them back in, especially not me

Maybe there could be some sort of automated thing which opens up referendums/polls showing support - like support for the Sim City mayors for those of you that remember that game - and then only allows elections to be opened or chucks out the current leader if support falls below a certain level. But that'd depend on people actually expressing their opinions. And elections seem to work reasonably like we want them to at the moment.

I think it is reasonable that the leader has to maintain support constantly, especially in a situation like the Commune where 'laws' and legalities aren't the governing force.
I think it shows better skill as a leader, both from player and character, to maintain support throughout decisions.

At the same time, I see what you mean, in that the democratic freedom that players are privileged to OOCly they often want to extend IC, with freedom of speech, equal rights, everyone having their equal say etc.
Similarily, my character has been criticised more than I'd expect for being extremely suspicous of races that aren't considered to be forestal, and with a blatant dislike for viscanti in particular. And, given he's an igasho, he's not partial to reasoning it out. He just states what he feels, and that's his logic right there. But a lot of people take a very humanitarian view (consider the use of 'human' a little inaccurate here), and I'm told quite frequently, 'don't judge by their race'. An excellent virtue, to look beyond the colour of the skin, or presence of a tail, or stumpy little horns - but not a particularly interesting one IMO, in a world that is based around fantasy conflict.

I think organisations should be extremists - Celest banning viscanti, Serenwilde looking harshly on those who aid cities or sell to them, etc.

On Auseklis' idea - I do quite like that - maybe there could be a sort of a status option, where you set your political support, which stays set til you change it.
For example
SUPPORT ////etc.

or alternatively
SUPPORT //
where opposition would only be one of a few different characters that were officially and declared as striving to make a grab for the political throne. Sort of like an on-going election, but a change in leader would only occur if there was enough SUPPORT for one character (either by an automatic change, or by initiating an actual election).

I think that'd be great... making way for official 'factions' within an organisation.

This applies to some extent with the city council. Since it consists of the GMs, if you don't like what the Paladin GM is doing in city council but you are not a Paladin then you cannot remove him from office.

So draft a constitution that makes the city leader an executive instead of a legislator and your problem is solved. For example, many cities have a city council and mayor. The mayor has the power to set the city council agendas and maybe a veto, but the mayor has no ability to pass laws. (In fact the US was like this until Lincoln invented the imaginary power of "executive order" that no one in Congress had guts to challenge and every president has used ever since.)

Or read John Locke's "Second Treatise on Government" for another good model. He makes the chief executive have no legislative power except for making emergency decisions when the legislature is not in session. He then proposes such emergency legislation last until the legislature formally meets, in which case it must be approved or shot down.

Being one who loved to play the political game, if I were an aspiring political leader wanting to usurp power, I would do so by promoting a consitution that limits the power of the seat I want to undermine, then open up a popular refendum for the people to ratify it. If it wins, that opens up lots of room for mudslinging anyone who opposes it as being an "enemy of the people" or some other slander appropriate for the degree of victory in the referendum.

I think the problem is that Nikua seems to have trouble making decisions.


In your example (Which I'm not even sure is true, since there's no contention yet)

Nikua kicks people out for reviving Hallifax/Gaudiguch.

The problem in -this- is that Nikua also said, in a Council meeting, that he wouldn't do anything and if someone wishes to return one of the cities, then it will be their own thing and we won't interfere.



However, Roark has a point. Leaders only have as much power as the people give them. If the people feel a leader should have no power except in cases of Diplomatic, or Militaristic (I've seen both suggestions), then it is up to the people to ensure that.

i'm not too much into political games, but a family could hoard all the political seats of a city displaying an appearance of peacefull stability while the struggle for power would take place within the family hierarchy and afar from prying ears.

It's basic, raw and efficient, cling to the instinct of group survival, without having to elaborate strategies, referendum's stuff and seemingly democratic behaviour.

Viscanti in Celest are all power blocked, and there were no cries for removing a leader. Have you actually TRIED bopping the rebels?

'grats. You just made a 16 year old feel outdated.

Yes, he removed Akraasiel the first day we found him helping. The commune was split in half again. Half saw our point, half said, "This is a commune, we can do what we want." or, "Maybe they will be allies." People don't get that if you're in Serenwilde, you don't like cities, it's not a rest spot until your city is made.

No, a leader does not always have the support of everyone. When a decision is made, people don't look into how it will affect their future, they see it as the leader trying to infringe on their rights, perhaps it's in Serenwilde only, because people went in to the game thinking "Oh a commune! I can do whatever I want here."

And I don't mean it's up to the Gods if a leader should still be a leader, only if enough mortals come to them, do they need to assess if this leader really isn't doing their job or working for the city/commune. I would think a god would know when the reason so many people are speaking out isn't because the leader made a bad decision, but because the leader made a decision that means they can't do whatever they want anymore.

General elections every four years!

Hurray, this is about the only one of Nikua's recent doings I've supported. Not often I agree with he and Alyvia.
I reckon the kicking-out issue was more a strict principle of Serenwilde than of Nikua personally. If people are going to help the cities and try and bring them back, they can get the heck outta the commune while they do it, we don't need any more backstabbin' cities around!

As for the general elections, Iggy, that'd be quite hard, 'cause then everyone who wanted to get in would have to pay the 10k every 4 years. Messy stuff. Also, the boards would be so full of election propaganda crud it wouldn't even be funny. (Then again, I guess you're kidding, so whatever .)

May have been kidding, may not have been kidding. Guess you'll never know! -cackle-

The board would be full of propoganda during an election??? Sure you mean elections and not Thursdays?

I don't have a problem with the current system really. The only thing I'd change is to potentially make it so that at least two of the guild leaders who sit on the Council would have to register a "no confidence" vote on the leader prior to elections cropping up. This way you're not going to get spurious contestations over decisions that the general populace might simply not understand well enough at the time, and the potential abuse of a council made up of friends refusing to put in no-confidence votes is neatly kept in check by the fact that they can be replaced within their guild in the same way as always, so if they were seen as abusing their power in this respect they'd probably be contested and defeated without too much difficulty. (Providing the corruption didn't run too deep, of course, and if it did, that's a problem no matter how you look at it.)

No, I...wait, damn, you're right Okay, full of MORE propaganda!

I'm confused...

I like the idea of people being able to show support anonymously - from previous experience it's amazing how many people will send you supportive messages rather than express it publically....