Mayoral Terms

[Kostas]

I had no reason to bring it up. I don't know when the 3 months thing was set, but what's set is set. I can't possibly know why no one brought this up prior to the elections, were you kept from doing so? If yes then please do report it. You're clearly dodging my questions, I wonder why.

My point is simple, it is clear which side earns from which outcome. We already saw which side is winning the elections. The outcome of this is rather clear, it will be in favour of the winning side, because clearly they have more votes, that's why they won after all.

[eymas]

@eymas I do understand your point of view. Considering that the length is a flaw, though I do seriously find 3 months quite reasonable, maybe 4 if it has to, but anything less than 3 elections a year would kill this off, and actually make it pointless. If the terms get longer right now, then it is in disadvantage for AIP(one of the two parties that run in these elections), considering how chances for even a single mayor seat being handed to them are pretty low. SLP has already won 2/3rds of the elections, what makes you think that they can't end this vote in their favour? Anyway, I guess it's going to be solved like this, but don't mistake yourselves, this ain't the fair road.

Currently though, the options offer this:

3 months = 4 mayors in a year, one per quarter
4 months = 3 mayors in a year,
5 months = 3(?) mayors in a year, one continuing into the next year
6 months = 2 mayors in a year.

Given the 3 months, everyone's able to get a fair chance lest people keep voting for the same party since they're satisfied. We can't force mayors to step down after one/two years either. A second issue is that whoever is in charge should properly plan out his ideas and such, and make a proper hand-over so that the next mayor can make a smooth start.

So far, you always have the opportunity to reach your desires, and you have the choice to prolong or shorten your time of reign. Your choice.

My point is simple, it is clear which side earns from which outcome. We already saw which side is winning the elections. The outcome of this is rather clear, it will be in favour of the winning side, because clearly they have more votes, that's why they won after all.

And who voted for it? The people did. Those who voted chose for it themselves. Welcome to polls and elections 

[Cofiliano]

I had no reason to bring it up. I don't know when the 3 months thing was set, but what's set is set. I can't possibly know why no one brought this up prior to the elections, were you kept from doing so? If yes then please do report it. You're clearly dodging my questions, I wonder why.

My point is simple, it is clear which side earns from which outcome. We already saw which side is winning the elections. The outcome of this is rather clear, it will be in favour of the winning side, because clearly they have more votes, that's why they won after all.

Did you saw anywhere prior to election an official announcement that its set 3 months? You didn't, because it wasn't, like you admit on your own, you didn't know was it set or not.
Its a law practice, that every new rule/law/decision you make, can not effect things that happen prior to that. But the problem remains, that it needs to be decided. And naturally democracy is the answer, better then a decision made by the HQ that you would continue crying about.

You wanted it 3 months, because it suits you as the losing side, you want another fast chance to push your party, well Gents, here's the chance you're asked for, vote for your thing, and don't bad girl about it later.

[Devin]

The terms have not even started yet so I fail to see why people say the length of a term can not be extended until the next elections happen; seems rather one sided to give the first party only a short time to run so the next party can rule for even longer.

If the election term was to change it would only make sense for it to change for all of the terms including this first term which has yet to begin as the winning parties have not even been announced yet.

[Johan_S]

If the "election-tourism" topic didn't change the logic of the elections and didn't set any rule for citizens (minimum period of ownership of the house) to vote, I don't know why this poll exist in the first place, however, both parts have strong logical aspects (as much as "Elections-Tourism" cause) regarding to the durations of the status of Mayor, but only after the elections.

[Mikal]

*Certain mayors get groups/friends to vote 6 months*
Sounds like a fair poll to me!

[MrTony]

So far this whole voting system is based on friendships and alliances, as opposed to logic and critical thinking. But not a lot can happen to change that, it's a flaw (if you can call it that) with the community itself.

[Axison]

3 months is an extremely long time frame to carry out your duties as Mayor IN A GAME. It's not like you have so much to do anyways. And what's stopping the mayor from re-running in the next election after his time expires?

And as far as announcing the 3 months time period for Mayors, Teddy mentioned it in once or his posts, search it up.

[beLTa]

It's more easy to tell your supporters to choose 6 months option than buying votes.

[Devin]

It's more easy to tell your supporters to choose 6 months option than buying votes.

Enough with your indirect provocation, it bores us now.

[Stivi]

So we going to bitch about voters as well? It's obvious those who voted for AIP will vote for 3 months and those who didn't will vote for 6 months.

[eymas]

That is going to be inevitable, but it's the only ultimatum they got so far, if they want to have a second chance in a shorter time period then they choose for the three months, but you also have to deal with you yourself being given three months for your reign as well.

As for the voters; Let them vote what they want to, if they get indoctrinated to vote for the party of their friends, then its their problem. For us we can only tally the votes, we listen to the public's desires and we meet to them. It's sad but this is also what happens in reality; parties advertise to the desires of the people.
For those who do get somewhat pushed to vote for a party, be it bribery or whatever; maybe if reported we MIGHT be able to do something, but that's merely a suggestion.

[Stof.]

I'm for 6 months, it's a well deserved time to serve. Though, I also think as it's such a large amount of time political groups will have to show great activity and if the elected group falls a certain amount of time inactive there could be a re-election or something? The last thing we want is an inactive mayor/group.

[SkyHawk]

Does any know if the mayor system scripts are even finished? If they aren't is this going to affect the duration of our terms? In theory the day results are verified is the day terms begin, if the mayoral scripting system isn't finished or released on the day terms start how is it fair that mayors of that time have a duration of their term eaten up with just a title because they don't have the support to actually enforce anything? Now if the scripts are finished and we're just waiting then disregard this post but I don't think anyone has actually verified if these scripts are ready for the public.

[Mikal]

6 months really is too long IMO, it's a game and in games no matter wether they are based on real life or not you get things done quickly, the whole election/mayoral RP will just be boring, die out and get forgotten until the next elections, mayors who win now will likely go inactive after they lose interest but will run for mayor again when the next elections come round, it will just be a continuous cycle of pointlessness and the same people will always be mayor.

I seriously think that to keep mayor RP alive the elections need to be more constant than 6 months, but then again voting for your groups/friends comes before what's best for the server doesn't it?