Unofficial Chancellor eligibility poll

[GeneralHankerchief]

This poll is for King of the Romans PBM players only.

Basically, I want to see how many people have an interest in becoming Chancellor any time after the Cataclysm ends if the rules pass. Please ignore all IC stuff (like the fact you don't think you'd be able to do a good job of healing the Reich) and availability issues.

The main purpose of the poll is to see how user-friendly the PBM is becoming.

-edit- Ah, nuts, forgot to make the poll public.

[TinCow]

Yes and no. Both of my 'reigns' (Mandorf's Chancellorship and the Cataclysm) have been entertaining for me and I've had a lot of fun. The micromanagment can't possibly get any greater than what I am currently doing, so that's not an issue. However, when I'm done with the Cataclysm, I will be looking forward to taking a far more relaxed role. I doubt I will be fully 'rested' enough to want to be Chancellor in the next 2-3 elections at a minimum. Since I still think the game will end around that time frame, that means I probably won't run for Chancellor again for the remainder of KOTR. Thus, I mark my vote as no, though it could be a yes if the game continues for long enough.

[Zim]

I marked yes. The micromanagement doesn't seem too bad, especially when it's just for 10 turns. I waste lots of time with the game and forum anyway, might as well do something constructive with it.

I can't imagine my character winning a vote, though.

[FactionHeir]

Voted yes. I quite enjoyed my first term as chancellor many many turns ago and wouldn't mind another with a new character.

The level of micromanagement certainly increased, but on the other hand, I gave players a lot of OOC freedom during my term already in terms of having them determine their own movements etc, and in general I like micromanaging stuff

[Ignoramus]

Wolfgang can't see himself becoming Chancellor...

[Ferret]

I said yes, although a while back I would have said no, it seems a little easier to me now for some reason.

[Privateerkev]

I put down no. I of course have the obvious reasons of "electability" and "availability" but GH asked us to base it on "rule complication".

With the way the game is getting, even if I had the free time and electable avatar, I wouldn't do it. It's way too cumbersome. We've moved towards giving individual players more freedom, which is nice, but we've moved away from what the game was. The game used to be about each person running the game how they want for 10 turns with input and direction from the rest of the game. Well now we've basically turned the Chancellor into the person who "implements directions from players based on their relationship to the power structure." Maybe it was always that way. But it seems to be getting worse now. And with the new rules, it will only get worse. I realize I helped make the problem worse by voting for all of the OOC CA's today. But I only voted for them because I knew I would never have to deal with them as Chancellor.

I'm not sure if the Chancellor is able to truly implement their vision for the game anymore. It's too politically risky. Plus they seem too bogged down in doing the other stuff. Now the flip side of this is that the game has empowered players more. That is a good thing and will keep the game fresh. Since the number of players keep going up, the competition for the few top positions has heated up. Giving us more control over our avatars will help us feel more included and less bored if we don't get one of the 6 current mid/high level positions.

But this squeezes the person playing the Chancellor. I am wondering if we should scrap the whole Chancellor idea and make the position more of an OOC GM. Not as intensive as what TC is doing, unless people want to do that much work, but something similiar.

This game started out being a "feudal simulator". It was meant to simulate feudal hierarchy to an extent. But for most of us, that is boring if we don't have one of the top positions. Few of us want to be sitting in our settlements for the whole game with little/no hope at being Duke/Prince/Kaiser/King. So, in order to keep people playing and having fun, we keep empowering people. But that only increases the workload for the person who actually runs the game.

So, I am definitely not arguing for de-empowering people. We do want people to actually play the game and have fun. But for the next game, I think we should re-think the title system and power structure in order to make it more nuanced, as well as re-think the position of the person who actually ends up playing the game.

So, those are just some of my thoughts on the matter.