Succession Vote 1 - Turn 15

Please Do NOT reply with messages about "voting for me" or other such platform messages. Anyone that does so should be considered a court idiot - unknowledgable in the ways of the nobility, and obviously not ordained to take the throne!

In the year 3440BC (Turn 15) Ash88, the impartial administrator to the throne, approached you and asked, "Who is it that you would stand and support as our King?"


Timeline
All nobles may send 1 private message to the Administrator (that's me) in the next 48 hours (from the time of this post). Only your first ballot is considered; you cannot change your ballot.

Which King to Support?
See my post here for more details on choosing our King. Any other god-chosen candidates must solicit your support through private messages. The success of our Kingdom rests solely on the the candidate you place in power - so choose wisely. Do they have a plan for backup turn playing? Do they have an overall strategy? Do they need one? Are they good? Have they played in Team Games before? What have they posted on the forums? What can you dig up about them? If you are considering to support the current King - do you really like how he is running it? Is he involving you at the level you wish to be involved? As the "Team Captain" do you feel he has the structure and plan in place to win? Do remember that all questions to candidate Kings should be asked privately with absolute humility - but do ask, because they do need your noble support for the Throne.

Current King Assumed
It is assumed that the current King wishes to continue his reign - he does not need to send you a PM to indicate he is making an "attempt on the throne". Likewise as King he can post his "campaigning" on the forums - he isn't restricted to PMs. If the current King continues to have a majority of support there will be no coronation post - the results will simply be replied with in this thread.

How do I Become King Then?
So you want to become King then? Oh, very nice. It's very simple really - just gain a simple plurality (the most ballots) of the support in the noble house and make sure they send me the ballot on time and you will be crowned King! It is vitally important that you do this using Private Messages. This isn't a forum war or a popularity contest and it is against the spirit of our Team to use the Forum to whip up a Forum frenzy around your Throne grab. Might I humbly suggest that you gain your support well ahead of the 48 hour succession ballot - not in the 48 hours after the ballot is announced. The ballot occurs every 15 turns.

Casting your Ballot
You cast your ballot by sending the Administrator (thats me) a private message any time within the next 48 hours (from the time of this posting). In order to be absolutely clear it may say one of two things:

"I claim the throne." OR "I support <name> in his claim for the throne."

Click to expand...

There are no "ifs" "ands" or "buts." There is no "if so and so is running..." blah blah blah. You get one Ballot - your first ballot - you cannot change your Ballot! If your ballot is not phrased as above and/or otherwise unclear the Administrator cannot be held responsible for how he interprets it, or discounts it entirely.

Why don't we just post platforms publicly in this thread?
The reason is that being skilled at being a forum warrior is not the same as being a good King. They are two entirely different skill sets that often don't go together (although sometimes they do). Getting a flock of annonymous people to side with you by making them think everyone already is while throwing in a little humour is easily done, but being a King is going to take more than being a forum whore. In fact, as the King has the power to silence forum whores who speak against him being a forum whore is not going to be the greatest asset in this game - winning is. Pick people that are going to win - not people that are just going to be witty in a post.

No Assumed Support
If you do not send your ballot then your support is not assumed. If the current King has your support you would do well to support him in the case that someone else has quietly gained a few ballots and would take the throne because of your inaction! This is also how we get a sense of who the active players are - so even if you are the quiet type please send me a PM! If you are purposely not supporting any candidate a quick PM to tell me you are there would be appreciated

Now... to the King!

Very Important Question: if King Indiansmoke I is not deposed, will he become King Indiansmoke II?

Úmarth;9122545 said:

Very Important Question: if King Indiansmoke I is not deposed, will he become King Indiansmoke II?

Click to expand...

I was going to use "The Second" in the case that a King leaves the thrown, and then later returns to the throne.

So, for example - if Ash88 was King then he would be Ash88 the First. Then if Umarth overthrew him he would be Umarth the First. If Ash88 rallied support and took the throne again he would then be Ash88 the Second.

"Upping the number" every 15 turns seems unnecessary and overly complex. I know in game their is the potential for someone to reign for well beyond a natural life span, but ... well... our mutual suspension of disbelief will save us from a lot of confusing work ... so simplicity ftw

LLTK

ash88 said:

I know in game their is the potential for someone to reign for well beyond a natural life span, but ... well... our mutual suspension of disbelief will save us from a lot of confusing work ... so simplicity ftw

Click to expand...

Sorry for my bad humour - but I couldn't resist this (This is highly OOC!).

Albeit, we are playing in the historical times of the Bible, where Methuselah turned 900-something years old - but His Majesty has already reigned for 640 years. Mutual suspension of disbelief is definitely a good idea I believe.

Oh, and this almost requires a quote from Bill Gates (which, is a false quote, since he never said it) .. On the other hand, His Majesty might take offense to that, since it would be extremely bad taste, so I'll leave that out.

LLTK!

In the year 3340 there were murmurings about the King. Is his health well? Has he ruled too long and going senile? Are his enemies too numerous? Gossip filled the court, and courtesans worked their wiley wonders towards descension.

It was that Ash88 was to address the court, but before he could Lord Slaze stood - out of turn - and said, "I support our King - King Indiansmoke the first!"

"Lord Slaze," Ash88 replied, "I appreciate your eagerness to of course support the King. However, were we all to follow your example of youthful eagerness our court would descend into Anarchy!"

Ash88's words did not phase Lord Slaze. He stood firm with bold and defiant support.

"Well now," the Administrator continued, "Good lords and sirs - men of nobility - may we put to rest here any grumblings in our Kingdom. Who among you claims the blessings of God to sit on our mighty throne? If there are any who feel their claim to the throne is good let him speak now, or let this all be put to rest!"

Lord Winston Hughes stood first, "I of course support King Indiansmoke."

"As do I," another voice chimed in from across the hall - Lord Caledorn stepping forward, "may he rule over us forever."

Lords Umarth and Hercules90 both also stepped forward in support for the King, as did Lord Aivoturso.

All the nobles present in the court had spoken, except for Lord Fktor, who was content to watch the proceedings and remain silent. Some nobles had decided not to attend the court - and history will forget their names.

"Very well then," said Ash88. "The let us put any rumours to rest as our rightful King sits on the throne. Long Live the King. Long Live King Indiansmoke the first."

See you on turn 30!

Oops I missed the vote. I humbly request that this these succession threads in the future explicitly state the time limit to vote (ie "Nobles must vote before x/yy/zz at aa:bb).I realize that it is my fault for missing the vote, but this would make it easier.

(OOC) I have to disagree with the succession passing from King Indiansmoke I to King Indiansmoke I. No, it doesn't have to have anything to do with realistic lifespans, but our in-character vote is about *succession*.

In character, we're not deciding whether to depose the King and replace him with a new one (that's the much more difficult bloody-coup option) or leave him on the throne. We're manipulating the line of succession to make sure our preferred royal becomes King at the natural end of the King's reign. And in this case, little manipulation is necessary because we all prefer the natural order of things, where Indiansmoke I is succeeded by his son who's very much like him, Indiansmoke II.

I hardly think it would be too complex to increment a small number every time we have a succession. It's a good reminder to occasional participants that successions happen, too, because I as well missed this one.

How about no time limit and just go by turns. Like for the next one, after someone great halls turn 28, put the message out, and when 30 is great halled, give the results. The uncertainty mnay get people to move faster. Although later 2 turns will take much longer than the ~48 hours they are now.

Mongus said:

Oops I missed the vote. I humbly request that this these succession threads in the future explicitly state the time limit to vote (ie "Nobles must vote before x/yy/zz at aa:bb).I realize that it is my fault for missing the vote, but this would make it easier.

Click to expand...

No problem; easily done.

(OOC) I have to...

Click to expand...

Just a friendly reminder that everything is IC (In Character). The only person that can start an OOC thread is the Administrator. If you wish to have an OOC thread started you can PM him and request it, but OOC threads are going to be rare. This is all to circumvent the tendency that people have to subtly spread an agenda through OOC. Instead of the Administrator having to evaluate every OOC comment the blanket rule is that everything is IC. In almost all cases you can bring up the same point IC as OOC anyways

How about no time limit and just go by turns.

Click to expand...

I don't yet understand what the problem having a timer is (48 hours for example) that going by turns would solve. I might just be slow on this - but what is the deficiency that we overcome by moving to turns?

The reason why I am initially against going by turns is that by going by a timer the Administrator can better schedule when the results are posted. That way the Administrator can be sure he posts them approximately when expected. If we go by turns - and a variable time - it makes more work for the Administrator because he constantly has to log in to see if the turns have cycled - not to mention be available when the turns are cycled. For example, after I posted the results I went away for the rest of the weekend - if the timeline was variable then I would not necessarily be around to give the results when expected.

The second reason is that the King has some say in when the turn ends. The King can, by not ending the in game turn, make a vote last 4 days (the game turn timer is 48 hours - so the King during a succession vote can just not end the turn). I would prefer if the King had no control whatsoever over the succession vote timeline.

Perhaps if I better understood what the problem is that a timer has that going by the turn number resolves we could solve the problem a different way?

Cheers,

LLTK.

ash88 said:

Just a friendly reminder that everything is IC (In Character). The only person that can start an OOC thread is the Administrator. If you wish to have an OOC thread started you can PM him and request it, but OOC threads are going to be rare. This is all to circumvent the tendency that people have to subtly spread an agenda through OOC. Instead of the Administrator having to evaluate every OOC comment the blanket rule is that everything is IC. In almost all cases you can bring up the same point IC as OOC anyways

Click to expand...

Given that last statement, the three-letter word I uttered seems a silly reason to dismiss a discussion. But let me rephrase.

I feel that referring to the successor of Indiansmoke I as "Indiansmoke I" will create confusion for historians chronicling our great kingdom and charting the line of royal succession. His Majesty, King Indiansmoke, the Second of His Name, is every bit as great as his father was, so there is no need to diminish his accomplishments by pretending the succession never happened!

rspeer said:

Given that last statement, the three-letter word I uttered seems a silly reason to dismiss a discussion. But let me rephrase.

I feel that referring to the successor of Indiansmoke I as "Indiansmoke I" will create confusion for historians chronicling our great kingdom and charting the line of royal succession. His Majesty, King Indiansmoke, the Second of His Name, is every bit as great as his father was, so there is no need to diminish his accomplishments by pretending the succession never happened!

Click to expand...

The succession vote is meant to see if a King continues to have the support of the nobles. It doesn't mean he dies, or his son takes the throne. I'm not sure where this idea comes from. If he loses support he loses the throne. If he continues to have support it doesn't mean he dies and his kid continues on.

This is how it is presented throughout the team meta game literature (I really don't want to change that, but this is a minor point).

If we were to do what you are asking; if we increment the "I" - does the King need to reintroduce himself? Can he continue conversations IC that he was having - or is every post he makes going to have to be prefaced with "My Father" or "My Grandfather" or "My Great Great Great Great Great Great Grandfather."

"I understand that you were talking to my father and great grandfather about moving the worker to the NE square. I am taking the exact same stance as my father and grandfather for the exact same reasons." -- King Indiansmoke III

"Yes, I understand that we should research Monarchy. I know I am new to all of you advisors, but I happen to feel the exact same about this as my Father, King Indiansmoke the III, and my Grandfather, Indiansmoke the II, and my Great Grandfather, Indiansmoke I. How fortunate that we all agree in perfect unison!" -- King Indiansmoke IV

"Why, Ash88, you served my father, Indiansmoke the V, and his father, Indiansmoke the IV, and of course his father, Indiansmoke the III, and we can't forget his father, Indiansmoke the II, and then there was his father, Indiansmoke the I --- and I must say you are looking remarkably good for your age." -- King Indiansmoke the VI

Why is it that the King dies every 15 turns and all of the rest of the nobles live on? Is it fair to kill off someones character and make them start new every 15 turns regardless?

In terms of IC accountability can the sitting King simple say, "Oh, that wasn't me - that was my father - so nah nah nee nah nah."

Also why is it that all the rest of us are still living IC? Should we have to increment everybodys name? So "Ash88 the 88th" has to roleplay that he isn't the guy who wrote the post 7 days ago - it was his father? Afterall, that's what we are asking of the King. Or is it that Ash88 has served 20 generations of Kings all named (for example) Indiansmoke?

It also says a lot for the lack of creativity in the Kingdom of Merlot that everyone has a son and they always name that son after themselves.

As I wrote in the literature - the IC stuff was never meant to overwhelm and this seems to add confusion. IC is meant as an optional diversion. We don't want the King to have to count which King he is currently roleplaying - we want him to win at the game.

And I don't understand the point raised above - why is it that if we don't increment the Kings name people will be confused? I'm very confused about the IC ramifications of forcing the King to die every 15 turns and having him replaced by his son who always has the same name. Luckily we aren't doing that currently so I know that King Indiansmoke I is our King. Who is King Indiansmoke II? His son? They seem remarkably similar - to the point where Junior can continue IC conversations he was having pre-ballot without having to start from scratch. Or should he roleplay that he has no recollection of previous conversations?

All that craziness aside, I suppose the biggest thing is that I don't see the benefit of doing this, and I don't particularly want to keep track of how many ballots each King has survived - and (most convincingly) I don't understand how doing any of it would be a benefit. Is the game better because we do this? If all it is is the number on the Corontation Post I doubt 4 out of 5 people will notice. If the IC Roleplaying continues through to the boards - and we are talking to King Indiansmoke the third then it gets confusing.

I admit I put the "I" after Indiansmokes name as an afterthought as I was writing the first Coronation post. I didn't think at the time that it would lead to these ideas.

I don't see any overwhelming reason to do this, and I don't see some overwhelming support to do it. I'm sure we could come up with a couple of points for this idea if we thought long and hard about it, but it would need to be fairly significant to change the ways things are already working.

Cheers, and LLTK

I agree with ash. Adding a numerator every 15 turns is just silly and cumbersome.

Adding one to the the numeral distinguish reigns makes sense (so King Indiansmoke I, King Slaze I, King Indiansmoke II). Perhaps bump the numeral when we change era too (so the Ancient era King Indiansmoke I could be succeeded by the Classical era King Indiansmoke II); I can't say I mind either way all that much.

Okay, I understand your points about how my interpretation would interfere with in-character discussions.

But one tangentially related thing: if you're so gung-ho about having absolutely no OOC discussions, what the heck was all that you just posted? Sorry that I sound so critical, it's just that I have no idea where you draw the line between OOC and IC, and a couple of discussions I've found interesting have inexplicably ended up on the wrong side of it.

Anyway, looking forward to a phase of the game where we don't have the next 20 turns planned out and we can talk about more relevant things.

ash88 said:

Mongus said:

Oops I missed the vote. I humbly request that this these succession threads in the future explicitly state the time limit to vote (ie "Nobles must vote before x/yy/zz at aa:bb).I realize that it is my fault for missing the vote, but this would make it easier.

Click to expand...

No problem; easily done.

Click to expand...

Could I also humbly request that the deadline would be presented in UTC? We have people around the world in the team. I for one do only know my time zone relative to UTC. For anything else, I usually have to check. UTC +1 is another possibility during daylight savings of course.

rspeer said:

Okay, I understand your points about how my interpretation would interfere with in-character discussions.

But one tangentially related thing: if you're so gung-ho about having absolutely no OOC discussions, what the heck was all that you just posted? Sorry that I sound so critical, it's just that I have no idea where you draw the line between OOC and IC, and a couple of discussions I've found interesting have inexplicably ended up on the wrong side of it.

Anyway, looking forward to a phase of the game where we don't have the next 20 turns planned out and we can talk about more relevant things.

Click to expand...

I've previously discussed the importance of this along with how it should be maintained. If you still have some questions after poking around a bit fire me off a PM and we can chat

Aivoturso said:

Could I also humbly request that the deadline would be presented in UTC? We have people around the world in the team. I for one do only know my time zone relative to UTC. For anything else, I usually have to check. UTC +1 is another possibility during daylight savings of course.

Click to expand...

Done and Done. Good idea!