Mayoral term limit

Nexmagus

To prevent the abuse of the office of the mayor, what if a term limit was imposed, say an account can only be mayor once every 6-8 weeks?
If the current mayor won the brawl or popular vote, just put second place in office.

Potato Basket

By the time first cadence is over the world would change so much that 2nd place might not be the right fit

Nexmagus

I understand that, what I mean if the current mayor won the week 2 election/brawl/whatever

phdmonster

Nexmagus wrote: »

I understand that, what I mean if the current mayor won the week 2 election/brawl/whatever

That wouldn't be fair though. The point is to have some sort of even ground between players and the best one wins. I think the system currently is fine and a mayor will get replaced once he becomes a bad actor for the Node. If nobody is able to replace him, sieging the Node is the next best thing.

GodsThesis

Fundamentally, you are trying to prevent bad leaders from rising up and staying in power. The issue then is if the population or structure of the node in their respective ways elected their own leaders, they should do well in picking a good leader and benefit from that. Conversely, if they pick a bad leader, they should be punished as so. Trying to only have good leaders and have good things happen is very unrealistic. This won't simply be because of leadership, but through how a node's structure will be decided. Whether they pick a certain religion, societal organization, and other more specific organizations to focus on.

So if a mayor adversely leads his node, then don't vote (scientific) for that person again. If on other nodes, then leave that node. Ultimately if you want to stay on that node, you and like-minded people should get together and try to get a good mayor or become one yourself. Term limits affect good leaders and bad ones. You want to prevent abuse; however, you also prevent quality individuals from continuing their reign.

I think what you should actually have suggested, is a call-back mechanism. Very similar in real-life where you gather signatures, or in the game's case: voting again, to see if the mayor is doing his job well. If not, get votes and redo an election. Or to not be bombarded by revotes, a vote every biweekly or weekly if there's enough dissent. I feel like 1 week is good enough though.

Personally, I am in favor of none of the options, even the one I listed. I like the original design more since it's simpler.

Xrael

Nexmagus wrote: »

To prevent the abuse of the office of the mayor, what if a term limit was imposed, say an account can only be mayor once every 6-8 weeks?
If the current mayor won the brawl or popular vote, just put second place in office.

Nah dude. Baraq Obama was a great President. Would you not want him to be President again just because he was the President before? Hell no. If the mayor is good and the citizens want to re-elect him/her, then that's their choice and it should be allowed.

Niraada

I think what people are forgetting here is that actively bad mayors will have a limited ability to accomplish anything. If the citizens of their node refuse to participate because of their actions, they are going to be faced with an impossibly daunting task to accomplish any level of development on their own.

I fully expect to see mayors regularly convening with citizen guilds in order to negotiate and meet development targets, rather than trying to rely on the contributions of individuals towards the node, because from what we can see, node development will be a hugely demanding task.

How attractive do you think mayorship will remain to someone who, through their own mismanagement has found themselves unable to accomplish anything?