Voting for a planets government is currently locked behind having a base on the planet (and account status). Running for government should be locked behind the same requirements.
There are players who have Run on nearly every planet in every region (for their own reasons). These players are not interested in actually operating the government of the planet since they have no base present and it adds a worthless wildcard in the election to have them on the ballot.
If a player truly wants to govern a planet, they should be willing to deploy a base there first in order to run for government.
UPDATE:
An alternative I like from the comments is capping the number of planets you can actively be running on is matched to your HQ level (regardless of having a base there). That cap wouldnât count any planets you are currently elected on. Its a minor incentive to upgrade your HQ if you find yourself wanting to run on more planets, while allowing more established players who are running personal empires to still manage all their own planets.
I agree with you that these players are a problem but there are also govs or parliament members managing planet they arenât on. And there are reasons for running on a planet you donât have a base on like for example managing gateways or just managing the planet because nobody else does. For these govs it is a bit problematic that they canât fill the CoGC as they need a base there so they have to use a proxy for that.
One possible solution would be that you need at least X political positions to be able to run on planets you donât have a base on.
Agree 100% with Skiedude. Itâs unfortunate that other players who have honest intentions would be impacted, but more important to eliminate the trolling. Itâs absurd.
I disagree. Governing is a lot of work and since the politics update, weâve been able to coordinate our governing efforts more around people who actually enjoy that gameplay and want to govern planets. Even so, thereâs often still a shortage of volunteers and many governors are only doing the job because âsomeone has toâ. I think that this solution has way too much collateral damage for the issue. I agree that AGR is toxic and a pest to the community as a whole, but I donât think this is the right solution. The best solution already exists: voting. Voting was adjusted to avoid situations like the Euu takeover in the future, it could also be adjusted to avoid this I think. In most places where AGR is getting onto parliament, itâs with just 1 or 2 votes. Maybe a minimum threshold for getting into parliament. I think a threshold could work well with the approval vote system. If 2 people get 20+ votes and AGR gets 1, their own, then I donât think they should end up with the same political power as the other MPs. Either donât allow them onto parliament unless they have x% of total votes, or allow them onto parliament but without the ability to draft motions ÂŻ\_(ă)_/ÂŻ
What about a limit that they may not run for government on more than twice the HQ level.
If youâve got HQ level of 10, you can run for office on 20 planets.
That limits the amount of nuisance one person can do. Itâs still a nuisance, but it limits the amount of nuisance that someone can do. It also tends to not hinder established players too much (those who are most active in multi planet governance tend to not be getting that close to my suggested limit).
Itâs not about political power as such⌠but rather a âdo I have to worry that a person who is intending to disrupt play for people on a planet is running for office there?â
*politically active players need to
or the voting system has to be changed so that you donât have to run just to fill seats (motion voting weight based on the amount of votes a candidate got, only one vote per citizen)
A running fee could be implemented in the same way CX orders / LM orders shenanigans are limited by an increasingly expensive payment past a number of daily interactions. That would also encourage diversity in governing bodies
I would prefer to limit it based on permit count. I could see paying it into that planets treasury when running for a planet and already running for or serving in other positions equal to or more than your permit count. By paying it into the government treasury you have an avenue to get the money back if you win the election. Alternatively, apply the fee only when running for parliament on a planet you do not have a base on, and refund it if you get elected.
I like the HQ level as your cap idea for planets you can openly be running on at any given time regardless of having a base there (doesnât count the ones you are currently elected on).
I agree this needs to be addressed and that there are nuances for this. Itâs a much bigger problem in smaller planets (PM sizes 2-3) than in larger governments. But I have noticed that in some instances if you get 0 votes, you donât get the parliament seat. I havenât been able to track it fully, but Iâve ran against AGR to try and help the small planets (3 of my seats are me running with someone actually trying to run the government).
Since itâs more of a problem on these smaller governments, I would propose something along the lines of limiting who can run in governments where there are 3 or fewer seats.
Whether itâs a limitation that you must have a base on a planet to govern it, or that the amount of parallel governor/parliamentary seats you can hold, I absolutely agree that there should be some structure put in place to prevent malicious players from wrecking election havoc.