Shard bound votes please

keven2002

Pawain said:

keven2002 said:

Riner said:

I don't see the Governor position so much as a personal benefit but rather a chance to serve the community. The Governor of a town can help to build community, much the way a good guild can. This in turn leads to a healthier population on the server. Lacking this the city becomes a dead space of NPCs. In the end I believe a mmorph lives or dies based on its community. People stay not to fight the same fights but to enjoy the same friendships. So, what harm does this cause? To me it slowly helps to kill first the town, then the server, and finally the game. 

What's stopping these said people from doing the same exact thing without the governor title? Without a governor tag; a community can't be built? I really don't care either way about the voting thing btw...I just don't understand why so many people are claiming it's ruining the community when people are free to do the same things without the governor title...if they really wanted to build the community. 

A lot of Governors participate in the Meeting with the King where they make up Lore about their city. It is a lot of fun.  Some of these players who do this just do it for griefing. They wont go to the Meetings and they will set the Town Buff to something stupid. And they wont be on to give titles to Citizens.

This is my understanding of what governors do (the meeting part). Basically they help EMs with ideas for EM events because they don't have the power to actually create monsters/drops etc. 

Kind of hard to imagine people actually going to the trouble of buying votes or whatever simply to grief. It's one thing if the person runs unopposed and just gets bored with UO and doesn't play but to actively recruit votes (from off shard) to change the town buff seems like a lot of work just to be a jerk.

JenniferMarie

keven2002 said:
Kind of hard to imagine people actually going to the trouble of buying votes or whatever simply to grief. It's one thing if the person runs unopposed and just gets bored with UO and doesn't play but to actively recruit votes (from off shard) to change the town buff seems like a lot of work just to be a jerk.

One thing I have learned after 16+ years of playing this game? Never underestimate the lengths some UO players will go to in the name of "griefing", "trolling", and "pettiness".

Grimbeard

Votes are selling for between 13 and 15 million tonight..but everything is fine..

keven2002

On what shard? Did I miss it?? I'd sell mine for 10m!

JohnKnighthawke

JenniferMarie said:

keven2002 said:
Kind of hard to imagine people actually going to the trouble of buying votes or whatever simply to grief. It's one thing if the person runs unopposed and just gets bored with UO and doesn't play but to actively recruit votes (from off shard) to change the town buff seems like a lot of work just to be a jerk.

One thing I have learned after 16+ years of playing this game? Never underestimate the lengths some UO players will go to in the name of "griefing", "trolling", and "pettiness".

As an example of what she's talking about, on Great Lakes this term someone named a character in opposition to another character (as in: "not-so-and-so") and overcame an 85+ percentage point loss in just a few hours.

While technically I cannot reject the null hypothesis, and will never be able to with certainty, the odds of such a thing being done for pettiness, and with off-shard votes, are far greater than such a thing being done for the good of the local community, and with local votes.

So, yes, please restore voting on only one shard per account. Most people have a primary shard they play on anyway, and occasionally visit other shards. Also, as I've pointed out previously, it's the local community that bears the consequences of the elections, and accordingly it makes sense that the election system should be localized.

So a shard-specific voting system, of one kind or another, only makes sense.

Merlin

Leave the election process as is.   We do not want or need “one vote for one account”.   It is a bad suggestion that will only decrease involvement in the elections and cross shard participation.

 

I currently have 40 accounts and voted more than 150 times across seven different shards this past week.  Maybe that makes me one of the bad guys, as it likely means that I probably put someone across the finish line that might not have won otherwise.   However, I spent quite a bit of time and effort wheeling and dealing to trade votes on Atlantic for votes across other shards...  most especially the process of helping others with ingots and gating in order to meet the loyalty requirements.  This process led me to make new friends, develop new relationships, ended up having me invited into new guilds and Discord servers, and ultimately helped increase my outreach into areas of the community beyond just Atlantic.   It’s because of this process that I will likely begin creating characters and interacting more in Catskills, Great Lakes and Lake Superior to play with the new friends I made. 

 

One of the great things about UO is that it sometimes mimics real life, and elections are no different.  My initial attraction to UO so many years ago was it’s “Wild West” factor, and these elections still have part of that.   To win a competitive race, you need to go out there and organize a get-out-the-vote effort.   You also need to strategize as to when people vote, as some folks wait until the end with a midnight surprise and some try to run up the score early to scare people off.   Other folks offer up gold for votes, which personally I don’t do, but I also don’t have a problem with it either.  Just like votes are “bought” in real life with various campaign promises and hand outs, offering UO gold is not much different.   Sure that means the “UO rich” might have an advantage, but again… mimics real life.  These factors all lead to unique strategies and situations across different towns and different shards.

 

This current election cycle was great fun.  Some of the races have their own drama to them and gives the community something to pay attention to.  Seeing the amount of coordination across some races is really interesting to watch, especially the few races that will sometimes have up to three or four viable candidates.    Some were big guild versus another big guild.  Some were a popular individual against an anti-candidate.  Some were a multi-shard alliance against a local force.   Each one of these races had their own flavor to them, and the dynamics were all different and unique.   Some people lose gracefully, and others do not.  I can understand that elections of any type make people uncomfortable, but at the end of the day, controlling the town buff and giving out City titles is about the extent of what these folks can ultimately do.  If someone loses a Governor race, they can still attend the Royal Council meetings.  On most shards, there will be one or two cities that had no one run for Governor, and those inclined can ask their local EM to be appointed to those seats if they promise to serve.   This process has been in place for years and has been working fine.   It is understandable that losers will come here to gripe about this, but these options to win are available to everyone.  You need to reach beyond your “local shard” to win… something I view as positive.

Hoosierpappy

Some....well..... maybe many......people are gonna cry about something / anything.
This subject isnt worth it.

CovenantX

If it weren't for the trade-deals half the players probably wouldn't even bother with the elections.

It's annoying as hell when governorship trades power and the new elected player changes the buff and f**ks over the citizens that built their suits around it.

a solution to that issue

Allow the citizen to choose their own buff, regardless of town.

and/or

Remove the 7-day cooldown timer to switch citizenship to a different city.   

I'd prefer both to be done, because not every shard has the same buffs relative to the towns, and when you transfer a character, often times you have to wait 7-days to use it..    just another unnecessary hurdle in-place, limiting PvP mostly, but I'm sure some other play-styles are affected by it as well.

Would it have reduce the fraud/corruption in the voting system?  perhaps a little, it'll certainly remove some of the motivation behind it, that is unless the devs decide to give the governor even more power.

Grimbeard

Again tram town buffs should not work in fel...

Merlin

Grimbeard said:

Again tram town buffs should not work in fel...

Yes they should.  

Grimbeard

Merlin said:

Grimbeard said:

Again tram town buffs should not work in fel...

Yes they should.  

I think we both know of our difference in opinion;)

keven2002

Grimbeard said:

Merlin said:

Grimbeard said:

Again tram town buffs should not work in fel...

Yes they should.  

I think we both know of our difference in opinion;)

Yes - you feel the need to constantly speak on how Fel should be run when you never step foot in Fel and have admitted in the past as McdDougle that you dislike Fel. You don't need to speak on something that you have to interaction with. Stick to Fishing and Dev communication.

JohnKnighthawke

If you look at the supporters of the status quo you'll see some commonalities. Here are two of those, and my responses.

1 - Their primary value appears to be the 'relationships' they make while participating in this activity.

That's fine. Lots of people have a perspective that isn't mine, I'm aware. I can't talk someone out of such a perspective, of course, And I'm not sure I'd want to! My appeal is to the decision-makers, not those who support the status quo.

But, I submit that allowing those who will need to live with the consequences of the decision to be the primary ones making it is just a more common sense notion.

2 - They're pretty open and honest that they benefit from the system as it is.

And, hey, most people support what benefits them. It's understandable. As it turns out, I've benefited from this system too -- in previous cycles I've been part of cross-shard voting, in order to help friends of mine. I never liked it, and while I can't recall if I expressed my distaste for the status quo in public before (I'm pretty sure I have, though), I know I have in private.

However, despite this, I still see that it's a better idea to have those who will have to live with the consequences to have the greatest say. It's just common sense to me.

3 - They're trotting out the insults and questioning the right of those who disagree with them to say things. Took awhile but it's begun.

I, for one, promise I won't question your right to support the status quo.

*shrugs* It's a little intimidating to oppose folks whose standing in the community exceeds my own, but it's got to be done.

Drakelord

I have five accounts and play across several shards on all of them, back before the one house rules we had small towers or workshops, only when the one house rule came about forcing us, when upgrading, to lose those small towers and move to Inns or friends.  I use trade deals across those shards and I vote to keep what I like to see at those cities I am a citizen of.  I do not sell my votes, I give them freely to those I have grown to know over the years of playing this game and the world we call UO.  I also had people helping me with my office on Sonoma.  Recently another player ran against me.  Now I had voted on Cats and Atlantic, and they return the favor with votes for my character on Sonoma.  They did not have to, I did not ask, but they were kind enough to return the effort of my voting to vote for me.

Rom

I think the game will be better off if votes are limited to one vote per account regardless of where it is cast. You don't have to limit it by house ownership or anything else. One account = one vote. Use it where you want to.

keven2002

I thought this was a widespread issue based on this thread but I guess it's really only a few cities on just a few shards?

There are a few cities on Origin that don't have a governor and to my surprise even Yew on ATL doesn't even have a governor after this most recent race (it was vacant previously too) which means that literally nobody even attempted to run. I should have run and won with 1 vote lol.

Merlin

Vesper on ATL also did not have anyone run  this cycle (I was governor there last term).  

Onixia

Having been a Governor for 3 consecutive terms, there is a hidden bonus.  As Governor the stone can be used as another Bank box and can store up to 125 items.  Personally, I love attending the role playing Governor Meetings with Lord Blackthorn.  

AmberWitch

Limiting it to 1 vote per account will greatly reduce the importation of votes from other shards. All this is, is too much ego getting in the way of allowing a shard's player base determine how their shard votes.

Importing votes from other shards is just stupid but it's going to keep happening as some people just don't realize or care how self serving this is.