Elections and the New Character Creation Process

[Indirik]

Also, IMNSHO, election fatigue is deadly for a realm. For this very reason, monthly elections are a great evil, and should never be used. Ever.

[Eirikr]

Didja ever have one of those moments where you're doing something, and someone in a completely unrelated context says something that makes you wonder if they've got listening devices in your brain? ;D

Not only do I agree with this assessment, but I am currently engaged in rewriting the new character creation process from scratch, and including in the new information being indicated about realms a measure of "opportunity." A significant component of opportunity is the number of positions that are elected.

(Of course, it will be balanced by "stability"...once I add some more data-collection to the game so I can actually measure that :-\ )

Yup! I know that feeling VERY well. Glad I hit the mark. ;D

That sounds like a very nice change. I agree that elected positions may not be the best indicator, though... If the ruler is clear that they make appointments based upon merit, new knights could very likely have better opportunity there than in a Republic. Maybe a kind of abstract calculation that takes into account "quality" of appointments: Is the same guy getting re-appointed over and over? How did he lose his position before regaining it -- automatically kicked (low realm opportunity value) or cyclical elections (high realm opportunity value)? (Since this stat would likely be changing as realm conditions change, it may be worth including wounds that remove lords (high realm opportunity value).)

I don't envy you having to figure out a way to measure "opportunity". :P

EDIT: And now that I've had a chance to read more of the thread... I think Scarlett and Indirik are onto some interesting solutions. Scarlett's system gives you a good idea of how likely you are to get promoted and thus gives newbies an idea of how they'll pace themselves. Indirik's idea gives an idea of how long it'll take an individual character to get promoted, in the realm, overall, and then with what level of experience. You could very easily provide those three separately to have a good grasp of whether a realm is promoting almost anybody or specifically picking the people who have been playing for a while (and thus know how to influence their way into a position).

I think it'd be easiest just to average each of these and provide word descriptors for given ranges (like "Good" or "Average" for characters getting promoted at ~40). If it is a 100% new player, they'll need the frame of reference. (Especially since age is a confusing little statistic in BM.)

[Vellos]

Tim,

Am I right in thinking this is the kind of stuff you want the survey to be looking at?

[Anaris]

Tim,

Am I right in thinking this is the kind of stuff you want the survey to be looking at?

Yes.

[Eirikr]

Tim,

Am I right in thinking this is the kind of stuff you want the survey to be looking at?

My name is also Tim. I was briefly confused. :P

[Perth]

The election fatigue in Terran towards in later days..... *shudder*

[Sarwell]

The election fatigue in Terran towards in later days..... *shudder*

And the new High Chancellor is... Hireshmont II Vellos! He succeeds... Hireshmont II Vellos, who was preceded by... Hireshmont II Vellos. Who was elected after no one even voted in the original election!

Yeah, I think quarterly elections are the way to go if you want anyone to take them seriously.

[Scarlett]

To be fair, Terran's problem was also a paucity of candidates who weren't Kas.

[Vellos]

The election fatigue in Terran towards in later days..... *shudder*

No kidding.

And that was even with quarterly elections.

[Sarwell]

No kidding.

And that was even with quarterly elections.

Oh.

It's been a while.

But I think quarterly could be manageable if you had more than one or two people interested. Monthly elections are just ridiculous, though - it's too short a term to accomplish much, and elections are too frequent for anyone to care.

[Perth]

The real problem with Terran and the post-Hireshmont Chief Magistracy was that the Chief Magistracy, the ruler position of the realm, was almost completely powerless and useless.

All diplomacy was handled by Hireshmont who was the Mootgram and an influential Astroist priest. The Chief Magistrate had basically no role other than to maybe hit some buttons he was told to it.

Not only that but the internal aspects of the realm were dominated by Kale and Quintus. And Kale also had the military locked down.

Add to this that we constantly had region lordships opening up, no one wanting the position or one random silent person running, they would win it, and then they would auto-pause few weeks later and continue the cycle. It was dreadful.

[Penchant]

The real problem with Terran and the post-Hireshmont Chief Magistracy was that the Chief Magistracy, the ruler position of the realm, was almost completely powerless and useless.

All diplomacy was handled by Hireshmont who was the Mootgram and an influential Astroist priest. The Chief Magistrate had basically no role other than to maybe hit some buttons he was told to it.

Not only that but the internal aspects of the realm were dominated by Kale and Quintus. And Kale also had the military locked down.

Add to this that we constantly had region lordships opening up, no one wanting the position or one random silent person running, they would win it, and then they would auto-pause few weeks later and continue the cycle. It was dreadful.

No offence, but it doesn't exactly seem like the best idea to have ruler with no power, when only the people in your realm know he has no power. Its seems like its part of the reason Terran got !@#$ed over. (Kas and the daimons for instance) I had no idea Hireshemont was running Terran's diplomacy after he was no longer Chief Magistrate and I am a lord within the 'moot so I don't know how somebody outside the 'moot would have any idea they should be talking with Hireshemont and not Terran's ruler. (It makes no sense btw, if Hireshemont was going to be the ruler of Terran regardless of if he had the position and you all accepted/wanted that, then you should have just stopped electing Chief Magistrate quarterly and kept Hireshemont as Chief Magistrate)

[Stabbity]

No offence, but it doesn't exactly seem like the best idea to have ruler with no power, when only the people in your realm know he has no power. Its seems like its part of the reason Terran got !@#$ed over. (Kas and the daimons for instance) I had no idea Hireshemont was running Terran's diplomacy after he was no longer Chief Magistrate and I am a lord within the 'moot so I don't know how somebody outside the 'moot would have any idea they should be talking with Hireshemont and not Terran's ruler. (It makes no sense btw, if Hireshemont was going to be the ruler of Terran regardless of if he had the position and you all accepted/wanted that, then you should have just stopped electing Chief Magistrate quarterly and kept Hireshemont as Chief Magistrate)

It was very apparent to us in Luria.

[Penchant]

It was very apparent to us in Luria.

I know, I have heard you mention it before actually, but the Kas fiasco would have been prevented if he was never ruler like he shouldn't have been.

[Scarlett]

No offence, but it doesn't exactly seem like the best idea to have ruler with no power, when only the people in your realm know he has no power. Its seems like its part of the reason Terran got

Of course. Terran got precisely what it asked for. Weak central ruler, a puppeteer whose agenda was only partially concerned with Terran and not at all concerned with Terran's magnates, election fatigue, and inertia sufficient that whenever anyone suggested changing anything it was met with skepticism.

Any organization in a place like that needs 2-3 major players to get together and completely change things. Phantaria and Saffalore were both mechanisms to do that.