At the time of writing, this is 10 to 9 in favor of putting the 2nd place person in, but most of the people who bothered to comment seemed in favor of re-opening the bidding. *ponder* If you voted for the second person stepping up, would you mind letting us know why just to get that side of the fence a bit better represented?
This vote closes tomorrow, and I'll decide then. Thank you, everyone who voted, and also everyone who commented.
[Poll] Seneschal
While we're discussing it, I do want to raise that the eligibility of Freemen feels rather awkward IC, based on the prestige, pay, powers and responsibility of the position. Or possibly, it should require X number of supporters to be eligible to reflect general social standing? Just a few theoretical thoughts (I won't be running for it personally, regardless).
I feel the bidding went by super fast and I didn't get involved (though I was on vacation for some of it!) so I'd like it reopened, personally, for a better sense of candidates.
Agreed that the eligibility of Freemen feels weird, though. Any other position where freemen can suddenly rise this far (Justiciar or EM) typically requires some gatekeeping, at least an IC presupposition you earned full Knighthood/Reevehood first, etc. Instead of requiring X supporters, I'd probably stack the deck - give freemen a penalty.
Agreed that the eligibility of Freemen feels weird, though. Any other position where freemen can suddenly rise this far (Justiciar or EM) typically requires some gatekeeping, at least an IC presupposition you earned full Knighthood/Reevehood first, etc. Instead of requiring X supporters, I'd probably stack the deck - give freemen a penalty.
I wanted it to be open to everyone because the big flaw in the old bid system in terms of game functionality was that the pool of candidates was too small when limited to higher social classes.
I wouldn't mind suggestions as to why this particular exception exists, perhaps tying into some sort of religious tradition or something? Ideas welcome!
I wouldn't mind suggestions as to why this particular exception exists, perhaps tying into some sort of religious tradition or something? Ideas welcome!
For an IC explanation to answer thematic awkwardness... We have a brand new Queen who has just come of age and spent the majority of her life in pretty strict seclusion. A bit of excess idealism -- "I want EVERYONE to have an outlet for a voice!" -- isn't terribly unrealistic, especially considering she's probably only interacted with Freemen in limited, cursory ways. Maybe she'll change her mind after a few years of adulthood, maybe not, but for now she's been a grown-up for a few months. Call it new-leader optimism, even an effort to make her "mark" by shaking things up. I'm sure she'd have advisers who might advise against it, but... y'know, it's a lot easier to let the very young Queen learn through experience, rather than argue with your Monarch.
- The_Last_Good_Dragon
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:08 am
I'd like to briefly expound upon my briefly-spoken of idea that the Seneschal be a Court-Appointment for situations like this.
Thematically the Court, and the Nobility in general, is trusted by the general populace to know what's right and how to lead the kingdom. Individually, the titled nobility each control hundreds of thousands of people and determine individual policy for their domains. In a situation like this, where a more open campaign ultimately failed, I believe that the populace would trust the Court to make the best decision for the good of the city. Is it an absolutely perfect IC solution? Of course not, but this era is an age of imperfection; that the Court reserves such power seems fitting for the ruling, elite social class.
Allowing the Court to handle such matters also solves the problem of general player-base fatigue: those interested can campaign to the active Keeper and members of the Court rather than having to extend the public discussion longer than what has already lasted (in my opinion) too long.
Thematically the Court, and the Nobility in general, is trusted by the general populace to know what's right and how to lead the kingdom. Individually, the titled nobility each control hundreds of thousands of people and determine individual policy for their domains. In a situation like this, where a more open campaign ultimately failed, I believe that the populace would trust the Court to make the best decision for the good of the city. Is it an absolutely perfect IC solution? Of course not, but this era is an age of imperfection; that the Court reserves such power seems fitting for the ruling, elite social class.
Allowing the Court to handle such matters also solves the problem of general player-base fatigue: those interested can campaign to the active Keeper and members of the Court rather than having to extend the public discussion longer than what has already lasted (in my opinion) too long.
~~ Team Farra'n'Stuff. ~~
- The_Last_Good_Dragon
- Posts: 254
- Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2016 1:08 am
Also Re: Freemen, I like that they can run but think it's pretty against theme. What if Freemen who wanted to run had to first earn approval from either a Court or City GL? This would add the thematic legitimacy to their appointment.
~~ Team Farra'n'Stuff. ~~
As far as freemen being allowed to run, playing Jamus during the election was a very fun time. I was extremely worried OOCly that he might actually win at a certain point and I'd have to have both an Archbishop AND a Seneschal character, but the actual running was absolutely fantastic. The debate between Naderi, Jamus and Hunapo was one of the most entertaining things I've done in the game. I'd like to put my OOC support behind allowing Freemen to run, and think that the whole idea of "immature Queen wanting a voice from the people" is a good one.
Characters: Jamus Grunsky, Takaro Sanche, Renton Feland
-
- Information
-
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 89 guests