Petition: For Selection of Kingdom Leaders

[schnukelmaus]

I believe that not only I, but many others agree that having an election for kingdom leaders completely has nothing to do with the length of a rulers term, nor does it have effect on how they perform their duties. This petition is for people that agree or disagree with having staff intervention among kingdom leaders' selection. Please select yes for if you agree with having kingdom leaders selected by the resigning kingdom leader. Please select no if you believe that staff should have input whether a kingdom leader should be instated OR if you believe there should be other means.

Having said this, if this petition shall be successful, if you agree, the Samurai election shall be reconsidered and then even possibly voided. (No guarantees).

Thank you and have a great day.

Also, I would like to add that approval of kingdom leaders will still pend upon circumstances - Past ban history, pillory, scamming, etc.

Please post any comments that you may have.

[jaws908]

I agree that the former kingdom leader should be able to choose his or her Successor. It fits the time line, to what I know, of GK, in addition as far as function goes the former leader would know who to give it to and who is loyal to the kingdom, the leaders often have players do favors that are not publicly known or highly thought of, so the kingdom leaders know more about what each player did for the kingdom than staff or other players.

- that is my opinion,
Ricky Steele

[Googi]

Ugh, we don't need to give the staff that kind of power, since so far the only criteria I've seen them use is "Is it Bosh? No? It's all good then." Responsibility for this kind of thing lies with the kingdom's members, who should stand up to incompetent rulers.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by Googi

Ugh, we don't need to give the staff that kind of power, since so far the only criteria I've seen them use is "Is it Bosh? No? It's all good then." Responsibility for this kind of thing lies with the kingdom's members, who should stand up to incompetent rulers.

I've seen nothing but the opposite - he was a serious candidate for Dustari if I understand correctly.

[Googi]

Originally Posted by Stephen

I've seen nothing but the opposite - he was a serious candidate for Dustari if I understand correctly.

Nobody seems to be able to figure out what kind of staff involvement there was in that one.

[ReBorn_Spirit]

A secondary leader should normally take their place. An example would be be when you have an active Queen or Prince to choose from.

[Waltz5]

A combination of both.

There needs to be a written in stone rule about transferring leadership in a kingdom. That way, the current leader knows what steps to take. There should be some acknowledgement of why this person is fit for the job. Then it's quite simple, if they don't follow the steps they don't get what they want. The staff should have some say in this, so as people do not come out of no where with no validation for being chosen (hopefully preventing USDing the kingdom).

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

A secondary leader should normally take their place. An example would be be when you have an active Queen or Prince to choose from.

Yeah, but I wouldn't just limit it to that. Military leaders have been known to assume power.

[schnukelmaus]

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

A secondary leader should normally take their place. An example would be be when you have an active Queen or Prince to choose from.

This is considering the fact that you have none such as Samurai and Zormite Republic. It should be automatic that the next person of the royal ranks gets the kingdom since you trust them so.

[ReBorn_Spirit]

Considering recent events I agree with you that Samurai should have a leader and Zormite as well.. but Shelly can run Zormite, the Queen of Zormite that is.

[schnukelmaus]

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

Considering recent events I agree with you that Samurai should have a leader and Zormite as well.. but Shelly can run Zormite, the Queen of Zormite that is.

Tomorrow, I don't think that statement will be true.

[ReBorn_Spirit]

Perhaps it won't be, but still it is now that I was concerned with.

[Sam]

We do not accept leaders without any or a low expirience on GK. We also have to take care of get someone who is a honorable person because all citizen have to trust their leaders.

[schnukelmaus]

Originally Posted by Sam

We do not accept leaders without any or a low expirience on GK. We also have to take care of get someone who is a honorable person because all citizen have to trust their leaders.

Well, I believe Stromstedt has the approval of the Samurai citizens considering the nomination thread. Another thing, I would like to point out is that it is really unfair how Dustari does not have to go through an election and Samurai does. They have had just as many leaders or perhaps even more than Samurai within the recent time period.

EDIT: Also, in addition to this, how can we be so sure that staff or elections could help? That is possible with any situation. Completely unavoidble.

[ReBorn_Spirit]

Originally Posted by Sam

We do not accept leaders without any or a low expirience on GK. We also have to take care of get someone who is a honorable person because all citizen have to trust their leaders.

This I believe is the first step we need to think about before we can even begin to "choose" a new leader. There are certain groups that would easily choose one of their own in attempts to kill what is left of GK. We need to be carefull of what happens.

[Kevin641800]

I agree

[schnukelmaus]

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

This I believe is the first step we need to think about before we can even begin to "choose" a new leader. There are certain groups that would easily choose one of their own in attempts to kill what is left of GK. We need to be carefull of what happens.

I agree with Dayaa, however, staff selection and elections will not prevent such from happening

[Sam]

Originally Posted by schnukelmaus

Another thing, I would like to point out is that it is really unfair how Dustari does not have to go through an election and Samurai does...

See my post on the Dustari forum

[Tigairius]

Originally Posted by Sam

We do not accept leaders without any or a low expirience on GK. We also have to take care of get someone who is a honorable person because all citizen have to trust their leaders.

I can agree with this in a sense, however I strongly disagree at the same time.
Sam, for years GK has done fine without staff assistance with kingdoms, I feel it can still be done, free of staff assistance. The only time Staff should interferre is if a kingdom leader has broken the rules during their reign, not prior to their reign.

[Stephen]

Originally Posted by ReBorn_Spirit

There are certain groups that would easily choose one of their own in attempts to kill what is left of GK. We need to be carefull of what happens.

What motives might feed a group to take such actions...?

[schnukelmaus]

Originally Posted by Sam

See my post on the Dustari forum

Not only was it the fact that you appointed John as leader without election, I requested for Samurai back after I had resigned and you did not give it back to me.

On the note of frequency of the variations within the kingdom leadership, Dustari still does apply for the inconsistency. For instance: Tseng, Ed, Fr0, Klay, John, Bosh, David, Bosh, David, John.

[cyan3]

Originally Posted by schnukelmaus

Not only was it the fact that you appointed John as leader without election, I requested for Samurai back after I had resigned and you did not give it back to me.

On the note of frequency of the variations within the kingdom leadership, Dustari still does apply for the inconsistency. For instance: Tseng, Ed, Fr0, Klay, John, Bosh, David, Bosh, David, John.

You missed out Lylic he was king before Klay.

[schnukelmaus]

Originally Posted by cyan3

You missed out Lylic he was king before Klay.

Thus proving my point even further

[SuperCornGuy]

i say yes because the leader picking the best person for the job is better than staff, i mean, what if drakeeo quit zormite and pojo or some random idoit wosre than pojo became leader becuase staff said so, thats suisidal im my oppinion. i say drakeeo would have a better pick than a clueless staff member.

[Waltz5]

Originally Posted by schnukelmaus

Thus proving my point even further

Unfortunately it's done with now. Instead, put effort into helping make sure instability is a thing of the past.

This does nothing of the sort in my opinion. You want to go back to the "old" way which was changed in the first place for a very good reason. However, I also don't agree that the current system is perfect. Look towards my previous post.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by cyan3

You missed out Lylic he was king before Klay.

and Drk and Steven and Padren and probably more

[schnukelmaus]

Originally Posted by Waltz5

Unfortunately it's done with now. Instead, put effort into helping make sure instability is a thing of the past.

This does nothing of the sort in my opinion. You want to go back to the "old" way which was changed in the first place for a very good reason. However, I also don't agree that the current system is perfect. Look towards my previous post.

I believe this does promote more stability, thus is why I'm fighting for it to be approved. I know Stromstedt in real life and I know he would be a good leader.

[Waltz5]

Originally Posted by schnukelmaus

I believe this does promote more stability, thus is why I'm fighting for it to be approved.

Players selected about 80% of the leaders you suggested. Yet you point to the instability? Just because you may choose a "valid leader" does not mean other will. As suggested by the instability, rapid changes, and controversial choices.

I don't see a problem with still allowing previous leaders choosing but having Staff approve it.

[schnukelmaus]

Originally Posted by Waltz5

Players selected about 80% of the leaders you suggested. Yet you point to the instability? Just because you may choose a "valid leader" does not mean other will. As suggested by the instability, rapid changes, and controversial choices.

I don't see a problem with still allowing previous leaders choosing but having Staff approve it.

I'm not just trying to get this approved just for Stromstedt. I believe that every leader should have the priviledge to choose who is the future successor of the throne. ^_^

[SuperCornGuy]

which in most cases is the best thing to do.

[schnukelmaus]

Originally Posted by SuperCornGuy

which in most cases is the best thing to do.

I believe everybody except the four people that voted no can come to that mutual consensus

[Waltz5]

Originally Posted by schnukelmaus

I believe everybody except the four people that voted no can come to that mutual consensus

Ok... but again. You're trying to back it up with they'll pick good leaders yet point to the instability which was coorelated to the leaders picking? I don't follow.

And it was changed to having staff approve in the first place not that long ago. You say it's for the best, but what measures if any should be taken in your scenario to help prevent such problems.

[pooper200000]

Originally Posted by schnukelmaus

I believe everybody except the four people that voted no can come to that mutual consensus

I voted no. I think someoen else should because while encouraging roleplay is good the choice for the replacement may not be wise so in that case it is not good. Mutual would mean unspoken and you just spoke it....

[schnukelmaus]

Originally Posted by Waltz5

Ok... but again. You're trying to back it up with they'll pick good leaders yet point to the instability which was coorelated to the leaders picking? I don't follow.

And it was changed to having staff approve in the first place not that long ago. You say it's for the best, but what measures if any should be taken in your scenario to help prevent such problems.

Well actually, in light of Tig's post, I think everybody should be given a second chance. The only way staff should butt in is if someone breaks the rules while actually leading the kingdom. Not only does that influence others, it also triggers them to do it later to jump on the band wagon, so to speak.

I voted no. I think someoen else should because while encouraging roleplay is good the choice for the replacement may not be wise so in that case it is not good. Mutual would mean unspoken and you just spoke it....

I can see where your going with that, but I do not agree. My reason for disagreeing is that how do staff know who is good at RPing and who isn't? Staff never oversee RP events unless it is posted on the forums. The kingdom leaders would know who is best for the kingdom, either way.

[SuperCornGuy]

thanks sube =D*hugs*

[Waltz5]

Originally Posted by schnukelmaus

Well actually, in light of Tig's post, I think everybody should be given a second chance. The only way staff should butt in is if someone breaks the rules while actually leading the kingdom. Not only does that influence others, it also triggers them to do it later to jump on the band wagon, so to speak.

So breaking a rule while leaving a kingdom is ok then?

[schnukelmaus]

Originally Posted by Waltz5

So breaking a rule while leaving a kingdom is ok then?

Sorry, I don't understand what you mean o.o..

[Sam]

I remember the time when we had a solid leadership in all kingdoms. Actually only one left: CP.
In the past kingdoms were sold for USD, items and whatever, that's unacceptable. Same goes for giving it to friends just because you know him irl or in game.
I still think the best way in this case now is the election.

[Gothika]

What about when the kingdom leaders would get together and decide who should rule next.

[zell12]

I think whoever is leaving, should leave it to whomever they trust and deserves it the most. If the members don't like the leader after a few weeks, they can call munity against him/her and a vote will be called.

This can all be done in game with NPCs and the Kingdom GUI I guess... no need for the forums really.

[Draenin]

I think it's pretty stupid that staff turned a blind eye to bug abuse and people USDing ranks when they happen, but yet think that justice is being done when someone decent is removed and someone far worse is thrown in. That doesn't strike anyone as contradictory?

We voted no on the election and yes in this thread for our own traditions. Keep it as it is, because things like bug abuse / USDing is going to happen anyway at some point or another, and staff should simply look into this stuff and take care of it, rather than stepping in and saying 'This is the way it's going to be.' They are player-run kingdoms, and should be kept as such. Whether or not they hold an election for their position should be entirely their decision.