After a certain amount of time having not logged into this great game, a
player should be removed as a member of city council IF there is at least one
other active member of that council for the player city. The city of
Ravensflyte was one of the first player cities ever founded, many years ago
now. Since then some players have left and not logged in for many years.
Because of how city revenue is distributed, Ravensflyte unfairly loses money
that could help to pay its monthly city taxes.
If there are no plans for a general ruling on this with regard to all player
cities, I formally request Archwizardly assistance on this matter. Even if it
meant not being able to recieve already long-lost revenue, making a change to
reasonably distribute current and future revenue would be a great help.
I'm going to monitor the ratings on this article a little and see how
players feel about this. I don't really have anything against that
kind of succession (I only hope it won't be used to "rob" someone of
their ownership of a city they founded).
I'm going to monitor the ratings on this article a little and see how
players feel about this. I don't really have anything against that
kind of succession (I only hope it won't be used to "rob" someone of
their ownership of a city they founded).
++ Gore
Just a thought:
What if council members can have a council (inactive) status? They still
maintain all rights and permissions, but cease to gain income, or any other
perks that you can think of that should be only for active council members?
Could be some threshold like hasn't logged in for 6 months, or a year, or
whatever.