City of IF

Chinaren · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 2:35 am Post subject: Question

I just spent five minutes constructing a carefully worded post, and then my PC crashed. So this time it's going to be more succinct:

I popped back over here and happened to see it was election time again. Having read the post started by Lily, I decided to ask this question of the candidates and any others who would like to chip in...

Is it time to rethink the mayoral role?

My thoughts:

When the mayoral role was first introduced it added some spice and a bit of a distraction to all the SGames going on at that time. The campaigns and the terms of the mayors were in good fun.

Then it became... political.

About the same time as I drifted away from here (though not because of it), there was an election that turned quite bitchy, and not in the good way. It caused quite a bit of bad feeling I think.

Since then some mayoral terms have also been punctuated with bad feeling here and there.

Now the mayoral process, I believe, didn't cause these incidents, but they certainly stirred them up a bit.

I'd also question the role of Vice-Mayor. CF had me as VM the first time, because she was going to be away a bit if I recall correctly. Later I dropped off and she carried on herself.

Recently though, it seems that there's been two candidates and one ends up as Mayor and the other becomes VM.

Does IF really need a VM? Especially as most mayors don't really do a great deal (I don't mean that nastily, there's generally not much to be done.)

Does IF need or even want a Mayor these days? The city is certainly not as active as it once was. Maybe a Mayor could be a role that is ongoing until they wish to quit, or another challenger wishes to, er, challenge them for the role. (After a minimum period of six months I guess).

I know I'm not around here these days, and maybe that's why it seems that whenever I do logon, there's an election going on, and half the time it seems to be apathetic whilst the other half seems to turn bitchy.

Maybe it's time for change?

Over to you...

Andolyn · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 4:03 am Post subject:

Well, like you said, you've not been here in awhile, and i'd say we definitely need a mayor. Unless key wishes to host all contests, settle all disputes ((mind you, election time is NOT the only time they pop up)) and generally be the go-to for EVERYTHING, then yes. A mayor is necessaryy.The difference is, we need a mayor who is involved and passionate about the city. There is A LOT to do around here, but if the city isn't made a priority, it's easy to let such duties fall through the cracks. When was our last spotlight competition? Months ago. Why? No one headed up another one.no matter how small or large we get we'll need a leader. As for vice mayor, I'll admit that during my term, I've not done much, but as you said, there wasn't much going on in general. If I'm elected, I will definitely pick a Vice. I have a history of odd illnesses coming out of nowhere, and I want to know the city will be protected in my absence should there be one.

Vishal Muralidharan · Joined: 24 Aug 2010 Posts: 867 Location: City Of IF!

Well... If not for general administration, I think we do need a mayor to atleast be the go-to guy to settle all the petty fights we get ourselves into (and it happens a lot now-a-days). The mayor's word is going to be final, and atleast the citizens might be forced to come to a consensus and agree to the word of the mayor who's been voted in by them. Like you said, there simply isn't much activity for the mayor to DO much, but atleast we know that there is someone we can always turn to. I can already imagine the chaos we'd have had if we didn't have a mayor during the BBS issue. We took the problem to a mayor and his council instead of foul-mouthing BBS (to her face). Things could've gotten uglier than they did.

There's also holding these competitions and trying to stimulate activity. We need someone at the centre or else we'd just be a bunch of random people posting stuff on the net. We need someone to hold everything together and make sure things are in place, and continue to be in place. Key isn't going to be around for that, and hence, we have this mayor.

In my opinion, the Vice-mayor has never actually done much, but I'd leave it to the mayor to decide if a Vice-Mayor is necessary. After all, the mayor would know whether he/she needs help with the administration. :)

Tikanni Corazon · Posted: Wed Jun 13, 2012 7:44 am Post subject:

I'm with Andi and Vishal. I'd say that we do need someone to organise things when we've got something going on (can you imagine what something like the IFYs or the Spotlight competition would be like if there was no go to guy/girl?), but also just to be there to sort any problems out.

The only reason that there ends up being any bitchiness or arguing, is when we let these things become personal. It's not personal, and it shouldn't be a popularity contest. It's about having someone who's motivated and cares about the site, and is willing to do a good job. People should just put aside personal differences when these things are happening. It's hardly helpful for the site's image to have arguments where the forums are communal and right there for potential newbies to see.

As for the vice, I think that there should be one, in case the Mayor is out of action. Otherwise what're we going to do, have a second rushed election to find a new one? The vice is there to do the Mayors job when the actual Mayor him/herself cannot, and just to help out where needed.

Regardless of how much work the Mayor and Vice do, I personally think that they're a required element to the site, just in terms of the general atmosphere. I'm sure it's going to make any newbies feel better if they know there's someone to turn to if they have a problem. Despite the occassional bitchiness, which I think is easily prevented if people just have a bit of a think before they go mouthing off (or whatever the term would be for the written equivilent), I think that having a Mayor has more good points than bad. :)

Crunchyfrog · Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 3998

We had a Mayor go AWOL for 4 months once. The site almost went into stasis it was so quiet. It was all the High Lord Chancellor could do at the time to keep a monthly competition going and for the rest of us to keep PM'ing Key to do the administrative jobs.

There needs to be someone available to do the administrative stuff and to be visible and approachable when problems arise. As Key says, whether or not there is a vice mayor and who that person will be is a decision made by the Mayor.

Vikas Muralidharan · Joined: 29 Aug 2010 Posts: 600

I dont think Key will be able to be here every day and solve all disputes. We need a mayor, even though not much happens. I still think its a necessity. We need someone to be responsible for running the site on a day-to-day basis, and like has been said before, holding the competitions. Its too much to expect Key to do all of that. Nope, I think the Mayoral seat is here to stay.

misterbiz · Posted: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:00 pm Post subject:

The mayor is a goddamn necessity. As people pointed out, disputes happen and there needs to be that one power to be end the dispute, no matter what the issue seems to be. As also mention, the BBS predicament would have been a hell of a lot messier without a mayor there to get rid of her.