[Poll] City Metric, City Report, City Forecast, and Seneschal

[Temi]

I believe we are indeed planning to go with an 'actions taken' interpretation, and that's the definition I put in the helpfile now (the argument was previously missing). It's not a vote, but just pushing around your influence on behalf of that guild/region/etc.

[Gerolf]

I think I'd like the Seneschal being able to see the outcome, like, "10/20 people have voted; Health is leading", but maybe not specifically WHO is voting for WHAT; that could require RPA or an IP-based command that's cheap for the Seneschal or expensive for everyone else..

So I have to spend IP each week to figure out who is shirking their responsibilities... Which means I will have to assume you are all shirking your responsibilities and will all get a talking to equally. I understand your concerns but right now ONE character can see how you voted and no one has ever given a compelling reason why Hunapo should reveal to anyone who has voted how.

If the job description is still to get people to follow a common goal, and it isn't a vote it is where you are spending your resources each week, then I need to know who is voting and how so that I can go to the people who aren't following along and ask why. Maybe they have a good reason to deviate from the flock that would be good for the whole to hear.

Now, if the job description has changed, and we are getting rid of the portion where the Seneschal is trying to get everyone to sing the same song, then sure, make it less granular. Then the job becomes just making sure people vote and everyone else can politic how to vote.

I completely agree with Dice and Zeita it should be more annonymous, current system makes it hard to subvert piety or even vote for anything but, when requested as seen as a heretical act.

I do not know where this interpretation came from but it can go away. To my knowledge no one has ever said subverting Piety is Heresy and subverting lawfulness is treason. If that is the case we have to hang everyone for trying to improve public health.

=====
My main gripe with most of these arguments is that -three- people participated last week. Three. They are the same people that participated the week before. The first week was great! We had almost everyone participate, then it got out prioritized by something. Most of the city council isn't engaged or having even tried the system, really. No one has come to Hunapo and I have gotten exactly one letter about any issue presented. There is no debate no politicking, nothing. In fact I am pretty sure if I didn't nag and tell you all how to vote, no one would vote at all.

Frankly, I think people need to engage more, come talk to Hunapo, send a letter, anything, before we go making tweaks.

I have tried to call an in character meeting and have gotten no support or feedback. So my question then becomes: Rather than everyone griping, what can I do to get people more involved and engaged? Clearly that is the root problem.

[Dice]

I think a lot of this disagreement is traceable to the lack of definition we had before now. Now that we DO have it defined that 'votes' represent tangible actions a person is taking but not actual votes, that clarifies a lot about how the system should work.

For example of what I mean:
1) Knowing votes: I think knowing votes automatically makes sense if votes are actual VOTES, but much less so if votes represent tangible actions. Then you have to ask, how would the Seneschal know what everyone is doing?
2) The question of heresy/treason: We're all trying to differentiate between NOT voting for a thing (which is fine) and SUBVERTING a thing (which is, since we defined it as taking an action, probably actually minorly heretical/treasonous). If we want to allow for subversion, that's probably another reason to keep votes shielded.
3) The Seneschal's job: If it isn't actual voting, then probably the Seneschal's job isn't worrying about getting everybody on board, but just to alert people to issues and encourage participation. That also means not voting isn't shirking - it's just not taking the time/effort to actively work for the city's betterment. Which is a kinder way to view it for inactive folks, etc.

As for why folks don't participate, it seems a LOT of us are being hit by that guild bug, so once that's ironed out you'll probably see a lot better participation. Add that and longer cycles (two weeks or even one month) to allow for more RP/time around it, and I suspect things will be on the upswing. Trying to ask for more participation before more tweaking puts the cart before the horse: we need the tweaking to make participation easier!

[Temi]

I tested the guild bug right with reset yesterday and it seems to be working correctly now. Only the actual GLs (in guildleaders command) use guild vote, others will use their noble vote as applicable.

Also, the system does not necessarily encourage everyone to be on the same page, since multiple items will be affected in order of votes, and the smaller increases and decreases will be random if all votes are for one thing.

[Pixie]

I tested the guild bug right with reset yesterday and it seems to be working correctly now. Only the actual GLs (in guildleaders command) use guild vote, others will use their noble vote as applicable.

Also, the system does not necessarily encourage everyone to be on the same page, since multiple items will be affected in order of votes, and the smaller increases and decreases will be random if all votes are for one thing.

Hmm... Does this address Margaux (who is a GL, but also a titled noble) being unable to vote without having to override my vote, as GL of the same guild?

[Temi]

I don't believe so. The spec I was given to test did not address this, so the expected behavior here would have to come from Kin.

[Zeita]

I just tested this with Emma, and Margaux's city supports are showing up as lodging for the Court rather than her. I hope this will be addressed? Right now, I'd have more influence on the city metrics if I was to take a demotion. I think if we simply resolve one's status as a noble first and then as a GL (for non-nobles) when it comes to any support/subvert lodged, that would be a simple solution to the current issue. Equally, simply give the vote to all guildleaders, I don't see the harm in doing so.

I have another clarification question: Are the voting members formally a 'city council' or is it more informal?

[Gerolf]

I have another clarification question: Are the voting members formally a 'city council' or is it more informal?

Help City Council defines it as an actual body. "City Council" as a command lists the current members, however I noticed a glitch. Brynieve isn't listed in the command.

And for those who were curious, yes Tenebrae does have a say.

[Dice]

I would suggest we ought to revise it then - if we're not 'voting' on anything for real, the body is probably not actually a council in any official sort, just a coded way of acknowledging who has the heft to influence city metrics directly due to personal resources.

(Give the vote to those with Wealth??)

[Geras]

I think Dice is right that there seems to be two different things mixed up here.

One should be each guild's ability to exert influence in the city - either overtly or covertly.

Another should be a vote on how to expend the city/government's resources and influence.