Citizen Honors and City Naming Rights

Bill_in_PDX · Oct 21, 2002

This thread is to discuss the concept of allowing citizens with honors to jump the CoC and name cities. This topic is not meant as questioning the value of citizen honors, which is a part of our game that many people enjoy.

Currently we have barely discovered iron working and a alphabet, yet we have a long list of individuals already nominated for honors. The game hasn't really even gotten going and somehow we are on a path that will end in nearly everyone receiving an honor before we get to the middle ages.

I fear that the rule which allows an honor receipient to jump the Coc in city naming may be a motivator for some honor nominations this early in the game, and such behavior would distract from the "honor" of receiving an honor.

I would like to discuss changing the law to remove the jumping in the chain of command portion of the honor process.

Opinions please?

Plexus · Oct 21, 2002

I disagree with allowing them to jump the CoC, maybe they could be after the governors. Also, how about we limit the number of honors given out per term (2 or 3). Just a couple ideas.

Strider · Oct 21, 2002

I was against letting honored citizens name cities in the first place....

Bill_in_PDX · Oct 21, 2002

Originally posted by Strider
I was against letting honored citizens name cities in the first place....

I wish the nation would have listened to you during that time.

Are you still in favor of removing that clause today?

Bill

Strider · Oct 21, 2002

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX

I wish the nation would have listened to you during that time.

Are you still in favor of removing that clause today?

Bill

Certainly.... Through wait till Dis see's this thread

. (Hey we agree with something!)

Stuck_as_a_Mac · Oct 21, 2002

I am anti honors naming too. officials should get to name first.

Bill_in_PDX · Oct 21, 2002

Originally posted by Strider

Certainly.... Through wait till Dis see's this thread . (Hey we agree with something!)

Actually, we agree on a lot of things....heck, I even voted for you.

dis doesn't have to worry, even if we changed the law, it would not be retroactive to his city naming.

Bill

Strider · Oct 21, 2002

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX

Actually, we agree on a lot of things....heck, I even voted for you.

dis doesn't have to worry, even if we changed the law, it would not be retroactive to his city naming.

Bill

I'm just refering to his quest to make the citizens the leaders.... He proposed once that we turn the departments into citizen groups with a simple manager. Weird....

Octavian X · Oct 21, 2002

I don't think that citizen honors need to be given city names. Generally, they are already leaders, or could get a position if they ever wished to run.

Then again, my opinion is slightly biased, since I'm still awaiting Octavinium...

naervod · Oct 21, 2002

Maybe instead of having every honored citizen name a city we could get say the best 20% of the honored citizens to name cities.

Cyc · Oct 21, 2002

How about if we remove city-naming as a perk for the honored citizens and give them naming Landmarks and Geographical Features as a perk? The Governors would have to give up this perk, but in doing so, would move them closer to the top of the city-naming list. We wouldn't have to downgrade the "Honored Citizen" hype, and we would keep the elected/appointed officials in the original order.

disorganizer · Oct 22, 2002

My original proposal was:
New cities: COC
Captured cities: honoured citizens
Existing city renaming: Governors

For all city-names, a citizen approval poll shall be needed.

I still stand for that proposal, but well, some of you wanted the other way last game :-)

@strider: the proposal of a flat hierarchy is not weird, it is what many firms try to implement today. especially when you dont get enough citizens to the polls to fill all positions :-P

Lecky · Oct 22, 2002

What about some naming rights for randomly selected non-honoured, non-elected, "ordinary" citizens. Kinda 'pluck a name out of the hat' process and then that person gets to name something. It's very democratic in the sense that it is totally random, non-elitist and not necessarily even popular!

Whadda ya tink?

disorganizer · Oct 22, 2002

reminds me of the apolytonian naming scheme i think :-)

now how about this totally new approach:
1) officials name new found cities. they dont rename existing or captured cities (as it is now) according to coc
2) governors can propose renameing any city of their province at the 1st week of their governorship (as it is now)
3) honoured citizens (if some exist at that moment) propose renameing captured cities.
4) landmarks are named by random citizens. no matter if they already named 10 or 20 things, a random generator determines the citizen number acording to the citizen registry, and then that citizen is eligable for naming any landmark he wishes which is not yet named. the drawing of those shall be after every turnchat. the naming must be proposed until the next turnchat.

of course, the points 2-4 have to go thru citizen approval polls.
if the naming proposal is not accepted, the citizen eligable for it looses his/her right for that proposal.

and of course, cities named by citizens are not eligable for renaming under point 2!

(hope i got this over understandably)

this way we get
* more people to name things
* dont have naming conflicts
* get the citizenry to stay at the forum between TC's.

Cyc · Oct 22, 2002

I think both of your proposals have good points to them Dis. Lecky your idea may be a little TOO hard to put a lot of faith in.

Shaitan · Oct 22, 2002

I think things are just fine as they are. A lot of ideas are workable but I haven't seen any advantage to any of the changes proposed.

The "randomizer" idea was tossed in the last game as being unworkable. Absentee citizens, etc, make it a bad procedure.

Scurcus · Oct 22, 2002

I agree with Cyc, in letting honored citizens name landmarks and officials naming cities, but why not let captured cities keep their names, at least until only inhabited by Fanatikan people

Shaitan · Oct 22, 2002

I guess the biggest problem with using landmark naming as a reward is that it isn't a reward. As we saw in dg1, only a bare handful of people consider landmarks as noteworthy. It's not much of a reward when it has little to no value.

disorganizer · Oct 22, 2002

Same thought i have shaitan. Thats why in the randomizer aproach, i used landmarks for it. In that case, it doesnt matter if a citizen is absent, as we only wait for between 2 TC's for him and if he doesnt take his chance the randomizer is set for another citizen.

To the honoured citizen approach: The idea of having them rename captured citizens was braught in to prevent collision with the normal naming coc (like we have it at the moment). Also, this would prevent a benefit from honours before later in the game.
And also, it would be worth more than only naming landmarks.

Shaitan · Oct 22, 2002

I'm against the randomizer but I would support having honors recipients rename a captured city if it was one city per honor, in the order the honors were approved. It should also be for newly captured cities, not ones we already have when the honor passes.

Citizen Honors and City Naming Rights

Grumpy Submariner

Architeuthidae puericomedentis

In Retrospect

Grumpy Submariner

In Retrospect

Aptenodytes forsteri

Grumpy Submariner

In Retrospect

is not a pipe.

My current user title

Looking for the door...

Deity

Naval Person

Deity

Looking for the door...

der Besucher

Chieftain

der Besucher

Deity

der Besucher

Similar threads