I certainly don't agree with an election to appoint a "new, unbiased player" to handle and claims and activity. Main reason I don't is that one doesn't exist and if one does exist in theory there certainly aren't two and sooner or later the first one would quit or step down and he or she would need to be replaced and they would be.
As far as voting over whether or not individuals should keep control over their lands, I get the argument that the same people seem to control land over time and it's a fair one. Part of the reason that they are able to do that is that they've got supports, members, backers, etc who are willing to defend them when attacked and to create activity when they arn't and those same people would vote for them if it came down to an election.
That being said using the lack of a "higher power" in land management to explain away inactivity in 42 is just as much a strawman as "the elitists". It won't fix anything, Land never has. If these poc's are so inactive that they should have their land given to someone else than they are inactive enough to invade.
Going to what someone else said about a Poc "reset", we see this happen every once in a while anyway. Usually with Keldegram, Relekka, or one of the other less used areas but it does happen. Doesn't turn into very much activity other than a few short spurts, but it happens. The problem with this gets into deciding that rp once a week isn't enough, or is it too much, or what's the scale, who picks it, who calls it out, and how is the "reset" overseen.
All that being said, I agree that more groups of smaller land are better for activity than fewer larger groups (Empires *cough*). The problem gets into the system that would have to be put in place oocly to facilitate that. I don't think land is the answer to any sort of activity issues, activity is and you don't need to be a pok to get activity going and having an ooc mechanism shifts the focus towards winning rather than doing.
02-Sep-2016 15:46:52