Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Ivorak

Increase clarity of land leadership/membership and land policy

Recommended Posts

I propose that we:

  1.  List current land leaders atop "View Citizens" section of each land's "Citizen Voting Forum".
  2. Additionally, or alternatively, logs of citizenship/leadership/alliance membership changes in the Log Review Room.
  3. Special papers for land leaders (attached to their person as are Comments on Self / Alliance Leader Statement / and other papers) for land announcements and land laws/policies.
  4. Also display the contents of these land leader statements (with date of last edit) in a screen available in each land and/or together on the bulletin board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As to 3 and 4 unless it's been removed (or maybe it was so long ago, it was only attached to those King of __ accounts), rulers should still have the ability to write a "laws of the land" type document viewable by fellow citizens but not the general public.

As to the idea in general: Why?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Pipstickz "Why?" Because I envision a MagicDuel with more intrigue and plotting and cooperation (that last one seems a bit odd in the set, but I believe cooperation is most meaningful in the face of difficulty/opposition). I think better defined social structures are important to achieve that, as written rules/treaties/alliances help make clear the constraints of situations and provide leverage for changing that structure. (Jo Freeman's Tyranny of Structurelessness, Donella Meadows Leverage Points, and Patricia Stokes' Creativity From Constraints might provide more insight if anyone would like to discuss further. But I'm not here to assign reading that I haven't done myself. :P)

I also think, given the relative dearth of active players, it could be useful to less active or newer players to be able to find out who leads a land without querying all the veterans they cannot find. It also serves as a small reminder of the power and responsibility land leaders have.

@Fang Archbane From that negative rep, looks like you disagree? I'd like to hear why; perhaps there are repercussions to added clarity I haven't considered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally Ivorak, it's not that I disagree with clarity, so much as what that clarity could be used for. I'm not trying to sound harsh or untrusting, but from my skewed perspective it seems as if a list like that could be used more easily to cause chaos and give a list of targets than to cause peace and provide a list of potential allies for treaties.

The potential for both good and bad with that idea is very real. The more you invest the more you chance to lose or gain. If we had nothing but good hard working peace seeking citizens in MD I'd be all for the idea. But I think at this point we all know MD is a tad more complicated than that.

Edited by Fang Archbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Pipstickz said:

Could it be done with clickables?

Yes quite feasibly, but the first step in my opinion is that people should want to collect the information. If we can get some decent information on the forum then it shows some willing for the data, and then we could spend more effort getting it "Officially" ingame.

 

1 hour ago, Fang Archbane said:

t from my skewed perspective it seems as if a list like that could be used more easily to cause chaos and give a list of targets than to cause peace and provide a list of potential allies for treaties.

Given that at times, even I have trouble working out who is in charge of some of the more obscure factions in MD, still at times unsure who is still around, etc, I think the usefulness would outweigh your belief someone would use it as a "Hit list".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record Chew, I'm against the potential (since its 50/50 for good/bad, 60/40 at best) but all for the implementation.

Instinct dictates this will get implemented. That being the case I've already accepted it. All i can do is hope it's used for more good than bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very true, but one should also (in my opinion) have the option to live a life of as much obscurity as one seeks. While it may not be easy for someone like a leader to achieve, the followers should be able to live a life in secrecy.

There are those who seek conflict. There are those who seek the shadows to avoid said conflict. Personally I believe it should stay a choice (something this list would take away) but again, that's just my opinion and I've already accepted this will be implemented.

Edited by Fang Archbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Fang Archbane said:

For the record Chew, I'm against the potential (since its 50/50 for good/bad, 60/40 at best) but all for the implementation.

Instinct dictates this will get implemented. That being the case I've already accepted it. All i can do is hope it's used for more good than bad.

Im sorry Fang but I am going to call you out on your attitude here, It's needlessly negative.

I have not said what will be implemented if anything. Mur has not said what will be implemented if anything. Therefore there is no specific plans for this being implemented. Therefore I implore you to, instead of bemoaning a potential outcome, of which there are many, reason what you think would be bad so we can consider your viewpoint.

Now if your viewpoint is considered and disagreed with by someone who can implement it, then you tried. Otherwise you are just being negative about something that may never happen, or may turn out to be amazing. It just puts a downer on everyone including myself.

12 hours ago, Fang Archbane said:

Very true, but one should also (in my opinion) have the option to live a life of as much obscurity as one seeks. While it may not be easy for someone like a leader to achieve, the followers should be able to live a life in secrecy.

There are those who seek conflict. There are those who seek the shadows to avoid said conflict. Personally I believe it should stay a choice (something this list would take away) but again, that's just my opinion and I've already accepted this will be implemented.

You do have a choice, however your choice is whether you join a public organisation or not. If you want to stay a secret leader of an organisation, join a secret organisation ;)

All of the alliances are public organisations whose member list is public, the only difference to the basic concept of this idea is that the loyalty leader is not always the leader.

----

I welcome your opinions Fang, similar to the second post. But the first is just overly negative and alarmist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My aim wasnt to be a downer, sorry if it seemed that way. I've stated what my worries are so well just wait for it to get implemented as raw instinct states it will (I did read what you said, but my instinct hasnt changed) and see which way it goes. Hope for the best and prepare for the worst as they say :)

Edited by Fang Archbane

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Forum Statistics

    15,826
    Total Topics
    173,463
    Total Posts
  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Upcoming Events

    No upcoming events found
  • Recent Event Reviews

×
×
  • Create New...