lol I didn't say me. I said the action. Seeing as the conversation exists because of said action it seemed appropriate. Plus how can I pass up a chance to say VIVA LA RIOT! Also why are you making a conversation about mechanics about personal matters? Bad form.
Oh, how fun. You all are talking about my glorious act of justice. VIVA LA RIOT!
If the king and vice-king are the one's who vote what happens when one of them is inactive? You could put a time delay on the vote, but then what if one of them takes too long to decide on the vote or are inactive for a day or two. Do the sitters also have the ability to make that vote? Let us not forget that sitters can also revoke dukes and kick players from the kingdom(evident by what happened in com1 regarding another kingdom I had, the same day I revoked the dukes of brosOsef, universal balance ftw). In which case who's to say the sitter didn't make that decision on their own accord without the consent of the king? Of course the king can just remove that sitter but regardless the damage is already done.
Conversely if you limit it to revoking two duke in a server then what happens if three or four of them go inactive? (which is possible considering we are talking about six dukes in total) Also what would happen if you revoke one duke in order to bring in a king from a neighboring kingdom in order to integrate that kingdom into yours. Then two other dukes go inactive after that and your stuck with an inactive duke for the rest of the server? What if the kings plan is to continue to remove dukes in order to place other kings as dukes to integrate even more kingdoms and then their limited by only two in that server. Which again leaves the possibility of dukes going inactive and not being able to be kicked.
A final thought on the matter regarding a previous event in com2x3. Nowis had the idea of making a player by the name of fear a duke in order to integrate unite into the kingdom. Where I was strongly opposed to the idea. A side note fear is now inactive and the duke who was revoked Calo is not. Which my opposition at the time was to have Calo just place another treasury up in that area and bring unite in anyways. Which in hindsight would have been a much better move(though perhaps no feasible at the time), especially considering 10k treasures were stolen from fear(via the kingdom gf) after the borders were closed. Regardless I'm getting distracted. So let's say I was opposed to this and voted against it each time preventing BrosOsef from integrating unite. Now lets say Nowis' last idea about being able to vote out kings/vice-kings is in effect. Then simply based on the disagreement between whether or not Calo should have been revoked. Nowis could decide to cast a vote to remove me as vice king which then would make the original voting process null and void. Since she circumvented it by removing any power I had to be able to deny Calo being revoked. (which of course doesn't address other possible abuses of this function, which the whole point of this discussion is to limit abuse of game functions).
Also, a side note, lets assume the dukes are also part of this voting system what exactly happens if one or more of them are inactive? Does the vote stay at a stand still until they return..if they return? What if the vote is at a stand still and another debate of weither a duke should be revoked comes up or even a debate about weither a king/vice-king should be revoked, can you dismiss the vote and start a new one?