[Discuss] Temporary position holders

[Justin Licht]

On 7/31/06, Justin Pope <jupo42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Here's my problem with that: what if the majority of the people either
> don't
> > want to be King, or have a specific person in mind of who they want to
> be
> > King?
>
> The majority of the people might want to build a big transport ship
> and attack some enemy on the other side of the continent by sea, but
> that doesn't mean it'll happen.
>
> Get DA3 back into power, if that's who you want in power. There's
> legitimate ways to do it. Not included on the list is letting yourself
> be elected with no intention of holding onto the rulership and
> stepping down once the old ruler has returned.
>
>
> --
> Unsubscribing and other list options:
> http://news.battlemaster.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/discuss
>

If you want ruler turnover, play in a republic or a democracy and campaign.
It makes ZERO sense that a King, who earns his title through lineage
ESPECIALLY in the case of DA, loses his position and can't take it back for
being imprisoned. Consistant roleplay says that DA is our king, and the vast
majority of the troopleaders want DA as king. IC and OOC do not mix, and the
no temporary ruler thing is a load of crap. IF the people wanted a new king,
they wouldn't vote for DA after Dante stepped down. So your argument isn't
valid at all, the old ruler has a chance to get re-elected but others do as
well, so there is a chance for ruler shift... It just depends on the way the
votes go... Sounds perfectly okay to me. If the people want a new ruler,
they will vote for one. If not, well tough cookies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://news.battlemaster.org/pipermail/discuss/attachments/20060731/d81d06bd/attachment.htm