citizenship granting item

[Shemhazaj]

[color=#808080][i]the item was taken along with other kings tools.[/i][/color]
[color=#808080][i]I believe it'd be best if that particular item was returned to chosen representatives of the lands.[/i][/color]
[color=#808080][i]The kings are no more, but people do feel part of the lands and keep asking for the citizenship.[/i][/color]
[color=#808080][i]It's even more important now when it was announced that there will be items/abilities based (at least partly) on land loyalty.[/i][/color]
[color=#808080][i]Any thoughts/comments?[/i][/color]

Edited January 24, 2012 by Shemhazaj

[Seigheart]

Yes, I would like to see the citizenship tools returned, but not to the "Leaders."

I also believe the LotE should get their Citizenship tool given to a citizen. >.>

[Burns]

We've worked for ages without having unallied citizens, a few more months won't hurt.

Since the kings had their items removed, there's no way to handle citizens who aren't part of an ally, so i don't think we should create more of them before all items are returned to whoever they'll be given to in the long run.

[Liberty4life]

have to agree with burns on this one, if there are no tools to keep citizens in line...
for ally citizens there is always kick button

[Maebius]

Hmm, as much as I want to agree with Burns, I htink adding more citizens would be an interesting experiment. IT would make hte Lands seem a bit welcoming to new folks if they can "join" after being here a few months and starting to get a sense of what goes on around the realm. Dissent would just be a risk, but an acceptable one, with fault able to be blamed on whomever has the Item, rather than "King/Queen".
So no real net change, is there?
Social politics are fun.

[Yrthilian]

i got a suggestin regarding this.
Why not have the main alliance
have an interfave to allow them to accept citizens.
Give the ablity so that only the alliance leader can grant citizenship
but let the page be seen by all alliance members.

That way citizenship can be granted if the alliance wish to grant it
It makes the land alliances more involved in the land

[Change]

That sounds like a good idea, Yrthilian. Although Mur seems to be fixing this sometime in the near future with tags and such, this could be a temporary solution. But I'm not sure if it would be worth it or not. What does it take to create an alliance? (that is, would it be worth it to make general alliances for each land, only to have a way of gaining citizenship without joining an alliance created a few days after)

(Edited after reading Mur's plans with tags).

Edited February 1, 2012 by Change

[Pipstickz]

[quote name='Change' timestamp='1328118578' post='103106']
That sounds like a good idea, Yrthilian. Although Mur seems to be fixing this sometime in the near future with tags and such, this could be a temporary solution. But I'm not sure if it would be worth it or not. What does it take to create an alliance? (that is, would it be worth it to make general alliances for each land, only to have a way of gaining citizenship without joining an alliance created a few days after)

(Edited after reading Mur's plans with tags).
[/quote]
Tags are different from citizenship. Tags are more superficial, they have no direct benefits (until Mur adds the summon by tag ability, but still not the same). Citizenship, however, gives you two things (that I can think of at the moment): Land loyalty days and house stat bonuses (I think, never actually tested it). As for creating alliances, I think you're misunderstanding what Yrth is trying to say: He means that one alliance from each land should get this interface.

As for the idea itself, it has a very major flaw: if that alliance were taken, someone (most likely) previously not even a citizen of the land gains control of who is a citizen. Then what do you do if that alliance is killed and there's no king to sacrifice a penalty point to get it back? You're back to square one, because who can say with 100% certainty that Mur will revive it for you?

[Change]

So existing alliances like the Knights of the Bell, etc. would be used? That'd certainly be interesting... This would be only temporary after all. I for one, [i]would[/i] like to join Marind Bell but it does make sense that without a Queen/King or some other known authority/powerful figure in the land that citizenship can't be granted.

Edit: In response to the original post, maybe the chosen representitive of the land has to go through a trial of sorts that possibly cumulates in the creation of a new item or a new method of granting citizenship? *shrugs* I do believe that people should be able to be a citizen of a land, relatively soon (within a month or two maybe?) but the representitives shouldn't just be handed the items back just so they can let people like me into the land without doing anything.

Also, this depends on what Mur means by 'land loyalty'. Does he mean loyalty to the actual land itself, or more to the people running the land? If it's the former, maybe make it an individual thing where people can prove their loyalty to a land by their actions. These actions might vary based on the land itself.. although that would mean that people have to follow Mur's assumptions about lands that seem to be more player created, so there's issues with that too.

Just my inexperienced opinion, of course.

Edited February 2, 2012 by Change

[Pipstickz]

[quote name='Change' timestamp='1328141853' post='103126']
So existing alliances like the Knights of the Bell, etc. would be used? That'd certainly be interesting... This would be only temporary after all. I for one, [i]would[/i] like to join Marind Bell but it does make sense that without a Queen/King or some other known authority/powerful figure in the land that citizenship can't be granted.
[/quote]
That is Yrth's suggestion, yes, but it wouldn't necessarily have to be temporary. Also, the problem is not that citizenship can't be given, it's that citizenship can't be given without joining alliances.

[quote name='Change' timestamp='1328141853' post='103126']
Edit: In response to the original post, maybe the chosen representitive of the land has to go through a trial of sorts that possibly cumulates in the creation of a new item or a new method of granting citizenship? *shrugs* I do believe that people should be able to be a citizen of a land, relatively soon (within a month or two maybe?) but the representitives shouldn't just be handed the items back just so they can let people like me into the land without doing anything.
[/quote]
I agree that we should work to get this ability back, but who would create this test, because we can't necessarily expect Mur to do it, nor can we really expect him to agree to give the items back if it is completed. The best way that I know of to show that you are worthy of a shiny new tool is to accomplish whatever the tool would accomplish without the tool. But then, these aren't exactly shiny new tools, so it's a bit different.

[quote name='Change' timestamp='1328141853' post='103126']
Also, this depends on what Mur means by 'land loyalty'. Does he mean loyalty to the actual land itself, or more to the people running the land? If it's the former, maybe make it an individual thing where people can prove their loyalty to a land by their actions. These actions might vary based on the land itself.. although that would mean that people have to follow Mur's assumptions about lands that seem to be more player created, so there's issues with that too.
[/quote]
What are you referring to here, where Mur is talking about land loyalty? Land loyalty usually refers to the points given for every day you are a citizen of a land (you can see somebody's land loyalty by mousing over the [?] beside their loyalty or honour score when you click their name), but I can't be sure that was what he was talking about in what you're reading.

I would suggest you talk to an LHO (or any older player, really), make your way through the announcements and forum topics (if you're up for a challenge/really long read), and spend some more time learning the game. It's not that your opinion is unwanted or unhelpful, but it is difficult to wade through what you say that is incorrect and find the points that are still relevant. Being wrong isn't a bad thing, there has to be a balance

Edited February 2, 2012 by Pipstickz

[Change]

I don't think that I've spend [i]that[/i] little time on the forums, wiki, and the archives (yes I've read through quite a bit, but still not that much. I'm a fast reader, heh.) I know that [i]technically [/i]speaking, land loyalty is just the number of days that you've been a citizen of a land. Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but this game seems to be a lot more than what things technically are. Heh.

As for the test, it could be roleplayed out by a chosen member or members of the community, without them assuming that they've won/done enough. Mur can decide that, and give back the old item, or a new one/spell/etc. But yeah, *goes off to continue reading stuff*.