ti-legacy.com

It's been around for awhile - a regency council without a regent. What say you?

Linking to the first New World Order Poll.

I'm mixed about this. On one hand, I feel like it draws RP only for nobility, or virtual nobility (like the Justiciar who is noble-by-title). However, it has potential.

Unfortunately, right now? It's absolutely not having any roleplay associated with it. A few members are inactive, and when the majority calls for three active players, that makes for some problems.

So, I guess what I am saying is that it needs some re-tooling, and possibly some re-casting of current council members, or it ought to be scraped and a new Monarch elected.

I was a maybe, and here's why:

1) From my view, the council isn't working as it stands. If it is to continue, things should change (maybe votes allowed by mail, not needing 3 on and actively voting at once. As has been pointed out, that just isn't working).

2) A monarch would make such easier, but yes, who is going to do it. I disagree with the first-come/first-serve policy for uber-important roles, and this would be one of them. Note that I'm not saying that the character itself shouldn't be incompotent (which could be very interesting icly), but the player behind it shouldn't be a seemingly random choice either just based on an early application.

2.5) I'd totally agree with the statements that have been made by the others. Its easy for me to say "someone should be monarch", but I don't have any good suggestions on who.

3) Maybe the freemen should just revolt and burn the palace down :)

I concur with Call's last point, which might seem silly, and maybe not specifically burning... but maybe someone can make a serious power grab or something. There's a way to do this with some crazy, awesome, potential for serious risk, serious gain, or serious loss.

I agree with Calli and RN. Having to have three people sit at a time is definitely not going to work, as it stands.

I have a suggestion that might be worth considering (or acceptable with some alteration). It has seemed to me that the council is an attempt to have more than one person in "charge" more of less, of things that are going on IC kingdom-wise. And while I was sort of wary at first, I see the appeal. But true, there's inactivity here and there, and if there's a matter that needs a decision, waiting an extended period of time might not always be possible, and it's rarely desirable, even for stuff on the silly/frivolous end of the spectrum.

So instead of going back to a monarch (because really, who do we all trust to play one who also wants to?) why don't we just shift into a form of government in which the Church still maintains virtually unlimited power (at least to start) and all persons of wealth and/or property (gentry, nobles, and guildleaders) have a 'vote' on the council concerning political matters? An issue is put forth, via mail (with a board post, to alert people) and all 'voters' have 4 OOC days to respond. That's over two IC weeks. At any given time, the way I look at it, personal schedules shouldn't prohibit several votes from being cast.

Anyway, just a thought! I think it'd be a fun way for virtually every player to have an impact. Possibly, to justify the cost of the class, etc. titled nobles/great lords could have two votes to gentry's one.

Kaemgen

Okay, so looking at the poll - I see no one in favor of the council continuing.

So, with that in mind, I'm going to discuss with the staff members about how we can remedy the situation and place a single figure back in power to be the go-to person as monarch.

Please note that this may require some RP massaging and support from the Pbase as from imms. Sorry about the failed experiment, guys!

Kinaed, instead of scrapping it altogether, can't modifications be made?

I agree - I think modifications, perhaps like those Calli suggested, might be a good idea, before the entire thing is scrapped. As it stands I believe the major issue with the council is that we can't get 3 out of the 4 current active people to be online at the same time for a meeting. Mail could possibly solve this. Kaemgen's suggestion on all nobility holding a vote might be fruitful as well, although it's possibly doubtful thematically that a Baron of a weak barony would have the same sway politically as, say, a Duke.

Estelle, you're right about that, so maybe certain characters' votes count more than others? My suggestion naturally wasn't perfect, and I admit that thematically I think a monarchy makes a lot more sense, but to be perfectly blunt I don't think there's a single player/character out there at the moment we'd all feel comfortable with as Monarch, who'd also want to do it. And let's face it, an unpopular Mercenary General or Proconsul is one thing, but a bad/unpopular monarch? It really could be devastating for the game. An NPC monarch would be fine, I guess, were the game not so noble heavy, but it is and I don't see that changing.

Just my opinion, but I do think before the experiment is scrapped altogether, we need to try modifying the council. There are plenty of things, I think, that could be done to address the problems/concerns people have with it. I really do think more members, allowing almost all business to be conducted/votes to be cast by mail, and a STRICT requirement that all matters put before the council need to be addressed in a certain amount of time (and not two RL weeks, either, I'm thinking 4 RL days tops) would do a lot to solve most issues.