This is a request for the DG Aristocrats to come up with the official Polling 101 Standards, so we can nail them down, and ensure the people that they actually practice what they preach. SOme of us had enough of the abuse of the terms of Will of the People and the Polling 101 argument used to stomp out unwanted initiatives or statements. Nailing down this standards would be the beginning to the end for this atrocious regime of hollow rhetoric, political correctness and abuse of usurped power based on arcane and obscure DG experiences.

Bring it out into the open now so we all can share in this for a fair and transparent system, and bring this regime of terminological terror to an end.

Mocking accusations of aristocratic pretention aside, I will in the next one or two posts reproduce the polling methodology adopted around the end of DG1 and beginning of DG2 as written up at the time by Almightyjosh.

1: Yes/No/Abstain
This is the simplest type of poll, just ask a question, and get an answer.

Construction
Things to remember:
- Always include an 'Abstain' option. Always.

- Make sure your questions are phrased in the affirmative
eg. don't use: 'should we not have a party?'
use: 'should we have a party?'

- Make sure your answer will be definitive
ie Is there a time contraint? Do you need to be more specific?
don't use: 'should we do this?'
use 'should we do this now?' or 'should we do this before we...?'

Interpretation
If a majority of votes cast, excluding abstentions, are cast in favour, then the motion is passed. Otherwise, the motion is lost.

All tied motions are lost (when phrased in the affirmative)

(NB: In some cases, such as ratification of consitutional amendments by the Senate, the requirement is different. This may be a higher proportion of no-abstain votes required to pass the motion or the requirement that yes votes outweigh both no votes and abstentions)


2: Approval
This is a multichoice poll. It is used to show approval for a number of possibilities at once, or to cut down a list. Before you start, you need to think of what criteria an option must satisfy to 'win'.

Construction
You may say either:
'the top x options will be accepted', so that the top x highest polling options will 'win'. This is best for cutting down lists to managable sizes!
'any option gaining x percentage of the vote will 'win', so that any option that more than x percent of voters approve will 'win'. I would suggest that 51% is a good option! This is very useful for polling a number of things at once, but be carful not to misuse it.

In both cases, x (which represents a number btw) should be predetermined and displayed in the first post.

Another option is an outside constraint like 'we will establish embassies with the top polling option until we hit our 200 gold budget'.

Things to remember
- Always include an 'Abstain' option. Always.

- Check the 'this is a multichoice poll' option!!

- If it is a poll to determine approval for a number of different options (as opposed to cutting a list) make DAMN SURE all of the options can be done without infringing fundamentally on the others.

Interpretation
The 'winners' are selected by one of two means depending on the aim of the poll:

a) By being in a the top x number of choices in terms of votes cast in favour, where x is a predetermined number.
b) By achieving x percentage of positive votes cast where x is a predetermined percentage.

In these polls I think the value of x should be displayed in the first post.

3: Plurality Choice
Polls from this category fall into three distinct groups, this is complicated, but if we could get it right our polling would be sooo much better.

a) Choosing from Distinct Options
In this case, the option recieving the highest number of yes votes wins, regardless of the total number of votes cast, very simple.


b) Choosing from Distinct groups of Related Options
This is essentially when you are asked to make more than one choice and vote for a best option. The main problem here is that people assume one option must beat all the others outright, this is not true. Consider:

How should get Monarchy?
Buy it, with luxuries - 5 votes
Buy it, with money - 4 votes
Reseach it - 6 votes
Steal it - 1 vote
Not at all - 1 vote

It seems that we should go ahead and research Monarchy, but this is not the case. In fact, more people wished that we buy Monarchy, they just dissagreed on how to go about it. In this case, we should group the two 'Buy it' options together when counting, and (if they win as a group) determine which of that group has won.


c) Choosing from a Gradated List
In this case we choose from a number of options calling for a similar action, but to varying degrees. In this case we must find what I call the 'point of balance' to determine the winning option.

For instance:
How should we deal with the Greeks?
More War
Ceasefire
Peace
ROP
ROP and MPP

These are gradated from one extreme to the other. It is NOT the case that the option recieveing the most Yes votes automatically wins. Take this example:

How should we deal with the Greeks?
More War - 1 vote
Ceasefire - no votes
Peace - 7 votes
ROP - 6 votes
MPP - 3 votes

Rather than looking straight at what option has the most, we look at which 'side' has the majority and at what point that majority ends. We MUST have a ceasefire to have peace, and we must have a ceasefire and peace to have an ROP, etc.

Therefore:
All the people who voted for Ceasfire, Peace, ROP or MPP would support a ceasfire AT LEAST!
Thus more people support a ceasefire that support continued war.

In the same way, those that support 'at least Peace' (voted peace, ROP and MPP) outwiegh those who voted 'No Peace' (ceasfire and war).

AND, although 'Peace' is the highest individual score, more people voted for 'at least an ROP' (ROP and MPP) than voted for 'No ROP' (peace, ceasfire and war).

HOWEVER, less people support an MPP (MPP voters only) than support 'No MPP' (ROP, Peace, ceasfire and war votes all combined).

Good work Eclecticos, you now won a big star in my book. I like people who work more than they abuse terms to minimize people. You brought new valuable knowledge to the forums, and for that you should be bestowed the due respect. To the others abusing the polling 101 term without helping to clarify and refine it , the accusation of pretense of Aristocracy remains firm and unwavering.

Maybe we can deal with another paper-tiger, "Will of the People" , when we are at it.

And, to put the above information into context and fill in certain gaps, here are the polling procedures as enacted within the DG2 Code of Standards:

Forum Poll Procedures

1. The following criteria are required for a poll to be binding:

a) Quorum levels must be met.

(i) Quorum for polls is 1/3 of the active census within the first 24 hours or;

(ii) 1/2 of the active census after the first 24 hours.


b) Approval levels must be achieved.

(i) In the first 24 hours a super plurality is required.
(a) To "win" the poll in the first 24 hours, a category must receive at least double the votes received by the next highest choice.

(ii) After the first 24 hours a simple plurality is required.

(iii) If "Abstain" ever holds plurality at the end of a poll, the poll is not binding.


2. The following criteria are required for a poll to be valid:

a) Discussion thread open for 24 hours, minimum.


b) Poll type in the header and first post.


c) Poll end dates/times noted in the first post.

(i) End dates/times can be conditional. (Example: poll ends at the beginning of the next chat turn)


d) Participation requirement (quorum needed) noted in the first post.


e) Link to relevant discussion threads in the first post.


f) Inclusion of an "Abstain" option.


g) Link to the poll in the Poll Registry.


3. The following criteria are preferred for all polls:

a) Proposed poll, up for 24 hours minimum.


b) Poll posted with link from discussion thread.


c) Poll duration minimum of 24 hours (48 hours plus is preferred).

(i) If the poll runs into the weekend it is advised that the duration be extended by 24 hours for each weekend day. Forum participation is much lower on the weekends.


d) Link to the poll in the appropriate Department thread.


4. Information polls - Do not have restrictions and cannot be used to justify policy, plans or actions.

a) All polls posted by Leaders are considered Official unless specifically noted to be informational in the header and first post.

Watch out Provo, the big bad conspiratic aristocrats are coming for you! :rolleyes:

Good work Eklektikos. :goodjob:

Not really, I have no quarrels with them :) They take the joke... On the other hand...

:) I would suggest that people quit whining about others not speaking on the subject of Polling Statndards. Especially people who have not been around very long. Polling Standards have been discussed every Demogame, at length. And people just ignore the advice/help that some of us put out. I'm sure the work that Ek has done above will soon be forgotten by veterans and never read by newbies because no one really wants to read about this. That's the problem. That's why we have bad pollers. Quit complaining and read. :rolleyes:

In another thread, Ek linked to what he called a DG2 Polling Standars Discussion. That was actually done in DG3. In fact, AlmightyJosh wrote the standards, linked to the DG3 Polling Standard Commision of DG3. Just so you know, Provo, that was the third Demogame in which Polling Standars were discussed.

In DG2 there was an abundance of discussion, although it was probably soon forgotten. And it's all still there for you to read. Take a look.

DG2 Poll Reform Discussion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=40661&page=1&pp=20)

DG2 Poll Reform Poll (http://http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41113)

DG2 Discussion of Citizen Polls (http://http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=40070)

The Infamous DG2 Polling Standards Commision (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=23594)

We have discussed, enlightened, adviced, pleaded, and documented the different aspects of polling standards over and over. No one seems to grasp these concepts.

Why haven't we brought these threads forward every game? Well that seems kind of pointless if no one's going to adhere to what's been posted. Like you, they just don't read them. I haven't been through what Ek has posted above yet, I was researching his link in another thread. So why you're reading the things I've linked to, I'll read what Ek's posted above.

I see Ek has impressed Provo. I'm sooo happy. :rolleyes:

I will note that the Polling Procedures nailed down in the CoS were from the DG2 Constitution. Funny, I thought the DG2 Constitution was too restrictive for the majority here. Oh, wait a minute. Am I confusing restrictive with informative?

The aristocrat here, nice work Ek... I will comment in detail later(kinda busy now)

Well, make it a prerequisite that the election committee makes Polling standards a sticky thread, and inform all new elected officials to read them up every new term.
If you uys make that an institution, as much as the RPG, that could really help.
Then, every poor poll could get the polling standards, part of CoL. The Judge Advocate could then Quote the polling standards paragraph in every heavily flawed poll and politely ask the poller to repoll the issue. Then we could put an effective end to making Polling 101 a sort of unidentified flame or political attack, but a discreet and professional correctional adjustment of the polling process.

Misread and flawed polls is the root of many flamewars in this game, and this could really help if we made this a central part of our system. Polling is by definition the Will of the People, and by doing this, abuse of the Will of the People as a term will be severely limited, as everyone knows that only violating polling standards or ignoring majority voices in the discussions is truly the WOTP, nothing else.

So strangulating veteran buzzwords used to take out competition, by forming a fair, transparent and effective system would indeed make this place more civic.
So let us pin down, discuss and poll Polling Standards as a part of our laws.

As already mentioned we had a Polling Standards Commission in one of the previous games. The volunteer members of this commission had the charter of looking at each posted poll and rating it as good, fair, poor, and unfair. Those polls rated as unfair were encouraged to be invalidated and reopened after being reworded. People who wanted to open a poll and weren't sure how to accomplish what they wanted could take the prospective poll to the commission and get feedback on it before creating the actual poll.

This commission does not need to be all veterans, in fact a mixture of veterans and relative newcomers is desireable. The true goal of such a group of people is not to not to disparage bad polls (though a little pressure often helps reform bad polls) but rather to make sure the citizens have good choices presented to them, in an easily understandable format and without bias.

Some more polling standards which came up during the last game would be:


Just as an abstain option should always be present, a no option should always be present. Do not disguise it by calling it abstain. (yes we had one poll which did exactly that)
The first post should summarize what the poll is about, at a minimum. Do not just post a link to discussion, and don't make references to ideas embedded in discussions without at least a minimal definition in the poll itself.
Don't use a list of fancy names for plans which are all similar, so that people can't distinguish the options, especially in poll options. Especially don't use a lot of words. Instead of "Big gnarly operation using the 3rd army of the people's elite mounted guard who used to be footsoldiers to recapture the glorious town of Shofragulum from the hated enemy who used to be our friends the Cartheginians" as a poll option, use "Recapture Shofragulum using Knights". :lol:


If I can think of more, I'll add them.

Don't use a list of fancy names for plans which are all similar, so that people can't distinguish the options, especially in poll options. Especially don't use a lot of words. Instead of "Big gnarly operation using the 3rd army of the people's elite mounted guard who used to be footsoldiers to recapture the glorious town of Shofragulum from the hated enemy who used to be our friends the Cartheginians" as a poll option, use "Recapture Shofragulum using Knights". :lol:


Yes, we definitely need people to use less ostentatious (fancy,pointless,etc.) vocabulary and use more vernacular (common speech). It doesn't help if it takes more than a few seconds to understand what someone is saying, especially when they're rambling.

As already mentioned we had a Polling Standards Commission in one of the previous games...This commission does not need to be all veterans, in fact a mixture of veterans and relative newcomers is desireable.
As a newcomer, I volunteer to be on the Polling Standards Commission.

As a newcomer, I volunteer to be on the Polling Standards Commission.
I'll second YNCS!

and I third YNCS and Cyc, these are good people I like to work with.

It *should* be pretty simple. Should.

To me, a good poll is going to have: Simply stated options in the poll
Options succienctly and clearly explained in first post
All significant, relevant information included in first post (example - production of cities when determining where to build a wonder)
All options with decent support (see note 1)
An abstain option
A negative option
First post should clearly state objectives of poll, time limit of poll and how the poll will be interpreted
Link to all relevant discussion threads
All poll options and entire first post should be stated in a neutral tone. Use the next post to lobby


Note 1: This doesn't mean include every single option. If the option has no, or minimal support, isn't a viable option, of you have a good, defensible reason to not include it, don't include the option.

See, polls should be neutrally stated, get the information to the citizen and explain how they will be interpreted. We had a few monumentally confusing polls (that massive, multiple choice poll from the minister of defense comes to mind). If you've got more than 7 or 8 options, you've probably got too many.

-- Ravensfire

All significant, relevant information included in first post (example - production of cities when determining where to build a wonder)

:lol: :rotfl: Oh no! I'm branded for life! :eek: :rotfl:

If you've got more than 7 or 8 options, you've probably got too many.
That's not always true. I'm preparing the polls for determining the starting situation for the game. There are 8 levels of difficulty (plus abstain), 9 different land masses plus random (and abstain) and, of course, 31 different civs to choose from.

However, I understand your point about keeping things simple. I intend to make the polls easy. Instead of listing all 31 civs in the poll, I'll have two polls, one for each characteristic. If, for instance, seafaring isn't one of the chosen characteristics, that'll eliminate 7 civs immediately.

BTW, if it's felt necessary, I'll be happy to open a thread on how I intend to run the polling.

You can if you'd like, YNCS. The veteran players here are probably familiar with your process, as we've used it before. You run a poll on which traits we'd like our tribe to have the most, then if necessary you make that a preliminary poll and run a second. Then you take the tribes with the most popular traits and run a tribe selection poll. Correct?

I would like to see a change in the way how election polling is done. We need a change because they way that we did before did not work. I think that with elections that we should get rid of the option of Abstain. Since we are electing people we should have an opinion of who we want to win and not sit on the fence. This would be only for Elections I hated seeing when we had lots of choices that the winner could have less than 50% of the vote and still win. So this would leave two options that we could go for.

Option 1.

We could have a run off between the two leading vote getters. This would take more time but would give us a clear winner. this is an easy to get the grasp option at first than the next option.

Option 2.

We could have a preferential voting system. This is a complicated option but it can work because I live ina country that does this each election. Here is an example. You have 5 candidates running for President. So this is how the vote can go.

They way that a person votes is according to who they want to win. Here is a sample ballot.
1. Person 5 (this is the person I most want to be the winner and so on in order)
2. Person 1
3. Person 2
4. Person 4
5. Person 3

So according to this ballot i want 5 to be the winner and prefer not to have Person 3

Person 2 has the most votes in the first round.
Person 5 then,
Person 1,
Person 3, and then finally
Person 4 has the least votes.

Now person 4's votes now get redistributed to accoring the way those who voted for person 4 votes.

After redistribution the tally now looks like this:
Person 5
Person 1
Person 2
Person 3.

We repeat the proces until we are left with a person having 50%+1 of the vote.

Since it is a complicated but much fairer system, I'll volunteer to set up the Second option if that is what the people want. If they do not want this option, then I remove my volunteerism.

Another thought.

Here is a bold move that could affect the way how polling is done. I think that maybe we could have two separate registry list for those who want to be active in this game (citizens) and those who want to be lurkers. This way is that we can make it complusory for citizens to vote in every major decission that effects the nation. This would make some polls invalid for lurkers since they are not fully active in the game but still want to participate in a limited capacity. People can swap between to the two registries because some people who started as citizens, might not have the time to be active, so they need to change and vice versa. This would mean that we would need people to be looking after those two registries so we have an updated list of those who are active and lurking.

Please make comments on my suggestions.

Sounds too long and complicated :ack:. I mean, if we go through this process of elimination in the elections, a week or two would have passed by (Depending on the number of canidates). Also, im not interested in having an Florida or an Ohio vote recount in the Demogame :p.

We should stick with the system that has been working since day one. "If it aint broke, dont fix it".

Well ch, I wouldn't really mind getting rid of Abstain in the Election Polls, but when a citizen doesn't really know anything about either candidate, they shouldn't be forced to vote for either, or be denied the opportunity to vote. So I guess Abstain stays. I don't really have a problem with a candidate winning with less than 50% of the vote either.

As far as your options go, I really don't like the first one. What you're doing is telling the winner of an Election Poll that they didn't win and that they have to run again. That's kinda like you asking the woman you love to marry you and she says yes, but she wants to date your rival also until the wedding, just to make sure she chose the right man. It's not fair.

Option two is way too complicated for me. Sorry. Too many moving parts. Too many chances for malfunction.

And I don't agree with two Citizen Registries either. Why should we make the lurkers sit in the back of the bus? Not fair. And we can't make it cumpulsory for citizens to vote. That's impossible. Unless you know where each citizen lives and are a really, really bad dude with a really, really big bank account. ;)

And last, this thread about Polling 101 is really about polls found in the Poll sub-forum. Elections Polls are found on the main page and are done by the Election Office. The Polling 101 class would be for citizens and Leaders who post polls on a variety of issues in a wide variety of styles. So your suggestions actually be long in the Official Discussion about Polls (Election).

Sorry I didn't have anything positive to say. Just answering your call for comments. Good work putting your post together though. :goodjob:

Anywho, as Cyc mentioned that this is a polling 101. And I do wish to help out. Using Ekl's proposal as a backdrop. I have provided a couple of definitions from the webster's dictionary for the people who dont know the meaning of the words or just needs a refresher.

Abstain - to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice

Quorum - the number (as a majority) of officers or members of a body that when duly assembled is legally competent to transact business

Valid - well-grounded or justifiable

Plurality - 1. a number greater than another 2. an excess of votes over those cast for an opposing candidate or option


Please let me know if there would be any words that most newbies would not understand.

I do hope to lend a helping hand to YNCS with the polls :).

I suggest we structure this information in an official sticky thread, which should always be at the top of the polling sub forum, I also suggest that the polling standards commission put the link to this thread in their signatures, in order to amplify the visibility of the polling standards. We should also write the polling standards commission into the Constitution and Code of Laws. CoL because we may reform it underway. This way, speculative use of the polling concepts in public debates will be severely limited to stated objective criteria most people agreed on.

Polling Standards Commission

Introduction
Mission Statement
Terminology and definitions
Standards for setting up discussions leading up to polls
Standards for setting up polls
Standards for interpreting polls
Defining the Official "Will of the People" (WOTP tm) by objective criteria
Polling Commission Evaluation Method
Polling Commission Procedural Rules for responding to flawed polls
Penalties for bad polling

YNCS, Cyc,.CG and Provolution are so far in this Commission and I suggest we continue in this vein with what we started with.

Provolution: Introduction, organization and oversight
YNCS: Mission Statement, Polling Commission Evaluation Method and Procedural Response
Cyc: All the standards, from discussions through polling
Civgeneral : Terminology and definitions, defining the WOTP based on these standards

Of course we will help each other out, and make corrections and edits in good faith.

I also suggest we develop some procedural polls on the most fundamental issues.

Nation Naming
Province Naming
City Naming
Unit Naming
Passing Constitutional Amendment
Passing Code of Law Amendment
Passing Judicial Review
Overruling Constitutional and Code of Law Principles in polls (Exceptions)
Appointments
Impeachments

Actually Provo, I believe the Polling Standards Commission should be lead by, or at least have in its ranks, the originator of the PSC, Eklektikos. Not only have his ideas been a part of this discussion from the beginning, but his mastery of the English language will ensure that our thoughts get from electron to font in an appropriate manner. I stand in his shadow when it comes to writing standards.

Also, at this point, I don't believe the PSC should be drawing up polls for the issues you've stated above. That's not really what the PSC does, unless someone has requested assistance in writing polls. The purpose is to set standards to help everyone write polls, not take on the poll writing responsibilities. The people who initiate the threads or lead discussions on the issues above would probably post the polls for them.

Although the PSC would be the conduit for Poll Reform in DGVI, this entity wouldn't "take over" poll writing for the game. Its role would be of an advisory nature, at least in the beginning, and could develop into other areas as needed.

Although some of my polls were terrible, I think I have the skill of poll-making in my fingers. I am more than willing to assist making (and as mod: correcting) polls if that is neccesary and requested.

Cyc Well I agree, I put myself in a very junior position here, as I can clearly see Eklektikos is the best of us to handle this. My little contribution was to put some organization into this to let the process develop, as I can see from previous times that the polling standards were buried in long diuscussions and then forgotten.
Ravensfire is right, we should avoid legalese for polling standards and use simple language
where we can, and have this in a revised and edited format in a sticky, with no real discussion going on in it, so everyone can read the essentials. I also think presentation format is key here, with linking the right threads, as well as properly introducing these.
I am sorry the opening post could be interpreted as somewhat harsh in this thread, but we see more and more that some of the junior people here might be tempted to abuse
Polling 101 and WOTP as buzzwords in order to blemish their political opponents.
Codifying all this, would cause less legitimate leeway for harangues and flaming campaigns.

Welcome Rik Meleet. It's good to see you again.

I agree Provolution. But, at the moment, I'm wrestling with the idea of this "codifying" of Poll Procedures in our legal documents, as I'm not yet seeing its application. You may be right on that, but it seems a bit too stringent in my eyes.

Well Cyc, I see you are reasonably skeptical to codifying the polling standards, but these are as important as instructions for turnchats and other issues. Especially since this would finally close the Pandoras box of WOTP and flawed polls for the sake of legitimacy and stability of the system. If we are a mock government, and we got that avalanche of laws for what have you with all the judicial reviews and so on, we definitively need to include polling standards that is fair to people not as knowledgeable about discussions, English language and so on.
Personally, I would spare some of my verbose language for the Newspaper "The Opposition" and be more to the point in practical threads.

I realized we need to emphathize with younger people, dyslectics, those impatient and judgemental, low reading ability, myopia and other reasons for them not understanding the polls. We need to communicate the polls in order to mobilize more participation, and rather keep our much more entertaining ramblings in separate sections of the forum. We may have fun with some 20 or so people in one thread, but then you get the 5-6 six over-mature no nonsense types starting harangues over it or some hurt kids starting to stalk you for perpetuity. So I agree, keep polling standards simple, clear cut and easily grasped, and then legislate these.

Enforcement is simple, we just have Polling Commission members sort of "moderating" the polls with pasting in the corresponding Polling Standard Article and add a polite comment calling for improvement of the poll. Still, we should be less rigid on making discussions compulsory on all polls, but specify what magnitude these are needed at.
Some polls could for my sake be posted right away, or the forums would be too clogged. We need less and more targeted polls to garner more people joining in.

Good call Rik, we may need a Moderator to enforce some sort of polling regime. A poor poll can in many circumstances be considered as bad as a flame or a troll for citizens that feel strongly about a major topic. I have produced both flawed and good polls, so I know what the range could entail. however, these polling standards should be discussed (with a deadline), revised and polled with the citizen registry and made part of the laws, and then enforced by the Polling Commission and Moderators. This way, we get a fine cooperation going on between the citizens and the moderator, as we basically agree on the polling standards. With clear and solid rules on this, there would be less cause for frustration and potential flames and insults.

Cyc, I really think the Polling Commission should present a draft for institutionalizing tacit knowledge to become explicit knowledge and codes. Traditional Laws is something we need to leave for good, and make everything accessible by new citizens.
The only major mistake I saw in DG 5 was the part of "traditional laws", which was only traditional and known to the early veterans, which excluded a lot of people.
And some of these laws required enforcement.

Eklektikos

I think many of us will be honored if you would lead the drafting of the polling standards in simple language, not legalese, but still applicable to be enforced effectively. The best laws in the world are easily understood but still can be interpreted only one way.
I will still keep some inputs on the organizational level, so we can fill in the blanks that is gaping holes stemming from DG experience and "traditional laws" not being forged out in real rules newcomers may relate to.

Good call Rik, we may need a Moderator to enforce some sort of polling regime. A poor poll can in many circumstances be considered as bad as a flame or a troll for citizens that feel strongly about a major topic. I have produced both flawed and good polls, so I know what the range could entail. however, these polling standards should be discussed (with a deadline), revised and polled with the citizen registry and made part of the laws, and then enforced by the Polling Commission and Moderators. This way, we get a fine cooperation going on between the citizens and the moderator, as we basically agree on the polling standards. With clear and solid rules on this, there would be less cause for frustration and potential flames and insults.
i would prefer if moderators only edited polls if the poll poster indicates so...
Of course I am not the one that gets a voice in that

I think we need to leave pure anarchy behind, and make the majority agree on poll standards, make the Polling Commission make their recommendations, and the moderator to act on these recommendation in agreement with the poll poster. Since these are DG rules not forum rules, these rules should stem from the people. But never again will flagrant abuse of Polling 101 and WOTP be used as buzzwords for political harangues, if these terms and mechanisms are pinned down in legal codes.

well if we are going to do this we need to removed this from article a:
the right
to free speech,
if we get pissed at someone for bad polling CC them(as long as we have polling standards in the law), not have a moderator forcefully edit their post....
we dont need to rely on moderator to enforce our rules, in DG1 and 2 there was an article that said mods would enforce forum rules only, not DG rules. We should find that and bring it back....

the right to free speech is key, and could be done in all threads and so on.
But if we agree on polling standards, we need to abide my them, or enforce them. There is no middle ground there. If someone complains about polling 101 as a standard, it should become a standard indeed. Free speech will take place in all discussions and the right to post a poll. However, official polls are bound by law, and posting a flawed poll on an official instruction decision is as bad as ignoring the instructions by the DP.
Polls are by definition the WOTP. I also think CCs are not working too well , and these should be kept as a last resort; I will sure never file one in the future. Notice that many of us want this to limit the conflict level and to agree on common groundrules.

Also notice that this process call for polling commission to point this out, ask the poller
to redo the poll, and if the poller agrees, make the moderator fix it. If the poller refuses to fix it, the polling standards will be used as solid and fresh evidence that will really make the CC case crystal clear, and not any political flavored decision based on gut-feeling, "common sense" and the political winds of the moment.

Where the polling standard has pointed out the wrong, the poller allowed to rectify it with moderator assistance, and the adjustment refused by the poller, this will be ery tangible evidence for a CC. Freedom of speech has been maintained, but fairly balanced with the right to participate in polls and the right to information.
A bad poll reneges BOTH the right to information and the right to participate.
This solution would fairly balance speech vs information and participation.
Democracy does not mean the right of someone to mislead, confuse and abuse their people, but to balance the rights in a fair, transparent and effective manner, especially
when it comes to the final accountability.

Black_hole, I know your skepticism to the undersigned and moderators, but we need to work with them for this to work, and we need a system that assures minimum quality of polling. We also should leave all traces of Anarcho-syndicalism behind.

Provo, I have no idea what you just said, but I think it was along the lines of "make polls clear, easy to understand, and not misleading."

Why do we need mods as enforcers? Are they going to ban someone for a bad poll? It should be up to citizens to decided what to do when someone breaks a DG rule. Mods are there to enforce forum rules.

I will repeat myself again....

Moderate poll with the consent of the poller, after the flawed poll has been notified by the Polling Commission with reference to the polling standard parapgraph. The poller may of course refuse to let the moderator correct it, the poll stands.

Please let me know if I did not make myself clear here.

I am sorry you did not understand the words, terribly sorry.
Where did you get the ban for a bad poll from ?

Citizens will decide through the agreed polling standards, enforcement by the advise of the polling commission and then the potential CC if the poller refuse to listen to the combined input of citizens, Polling Commission and moderator. However, the moderator is there to help the poller rectify the mistake, as the poller do not have the moderator edit privileges of polls. So this is a way to make this go smoother.

I will repeat myself again....

Moderate poll with the consent of the poller, after the flawed poll has been notified by the Polling Commission with reference to the polling standard parapgraph. The poller may of course refuse to let the moderator correct it, the poll stands.

Please let me know if I did not make myself clear here.

I am sorry you did not understand the words, terribly sorry.
Where did you get the ban for a bad poll from ?

Citizens will decide through the agreed polling standards, enforcement by the advise of the polling commission and then the potential CC if the poller refuse to listen to the combined input of citizens, Polling Commission and moderator. However, the moderator is there to help the poller rectify the mistake, as the poller do not have the moderator edit privileges of polls. So this is a way to make this go smoother.

Isn't that how it is now (with the exception of a few people who don't want to change their poll habits)? Anyways, wouldn't it be easier for a new poll to be made, rather than wait for a mod to fix an old one?

Enforcing polling standards is a good thing, but do we really need to bring moderators into the equation?

the right to free speech is key, and could be done in all threads and so on.
But if we agree on polling standards, we need to abide my them, or enforce them. There is no middle ground there. If someone complains about polling 101 as a standard, it should become a standard indeed. Free speech will take place in all discussions and the right to post a poll. However, official polls are bound by law, and posting a flawed poll on an official instruction decision is as bad as ignoring the instructions by the DP.
Polls are by definition the WOTP. I also think CCs are not working too well , and these should be kept as a last resort; I will sure never file one in the future. Notice that many of us want this to limit the conflict level and to agree on common groundrules.

Also notice that this process call for polling commission to point this out, ask the poller
to redo the poll, and if the poller agrees, make the moderator fix it. If the poller refuses to fix it, the polling standards will be used as solid and fresh evidence that will really make the CC case crystal clear, and not any political flavored decision based on gut-feeling, "common sense" and the political winds of the moment.

Where the polling standard has pointed out the wrong, the poller allowed to rectify it with moderator assistance, and the adjustment refused by the poller, this will be ery tangible evidence for a CC. Freedom of speech has been maintained, but fairly balanced with the right to participate in polls and the right to information.
A bad poll reneges BOTH the right to information and the right to participate.
This solution would fairly balance speech vs information and participation.
Democracy does not mean the right of someone to mislead, confuse and abuse their people, but to balance the rights in a fair, transparent and effective manner, especially
when it comes to the final accountability.

Black_hole, I know your skepticism to the undersigned and moderators, but we need to work with them for this to work, and we need a system that assures minimum quality of polling. We also should leave all traces of Anarcho-syndicalism behind.

actually mr provo,
the constitution is above the code of laws, and the polling standards are going to be in the code of laws(constitution is for such things)... thus after 1 JR the entire set of polling standards could be invalidated

Hold it. As I said earlier, the PSC should be seen as an advisory role. We don't need to turn this venture of teaching into a police state. The PSC should be advising and teaching citizens/Leaders the proper way to write informative, unbiased, and accurate polls. It should not be seen as the new sherriff in the Poll sub-forum.

If there is one thing I learned from the DG2 PSC is that when an attempt was made to codify the Standards, in order to make them acceptable to the majority, they had to be watered down so much they became almost ineffectual. The people didn't want strict Standards forced down there throats. But they would accept the middle of the road stuff that didn't require too much work. Well, duh. This pretty much negates all the original intent of the PSC. Why would I want to put much work into this project if were just going to be left with wishy-washy wet-noodle rules?

But, on the other hand, if the PSC is it's own entity, where it DOES list the proper guidlines for poll writing, it becomes each invidual's responsibility to accept them or not. That is a better definition of a bad poll writer. Not one where you can hide in the masses. By not making the DG population pass or approve a Law about the guidlines as a whole, WE will not have to use politiks to get them (and us ;) ) to accept them. We will not have to write Gumby Guidelines for people to bend and twist at their leisure.

So let's no look at this as a codable venture. The PSC goal is to help people become better poll writers, not to police the community.

:lol: :rotfl: Oh no! I'm branded for life! :eek: :rotfl:

lol - found an old poll of mine from DG4 where I did the same thing. Ya know - it's really hard to brand yourself!

-- Ravensfire

I see the PSC as purely advisory. If you're not sure how to word a poll, ask the PSC. However, if you post a poorly put-together poll, I see the PSC's job as telling you about problems with your poll and recommending changes. I've volunteered to be on the PSC. I have not volunteered to be a moderator nor will I act as the Poll Police.

Well, I think no one wanted to have a poll police. But of course there is always an over-reaction when something like this is presented. The moderator would just be there to help edit on the consent of the poller. The moderator would only be mandated to intervene on the combined request from both poller and PSC.
This is hardly a police, but a collaborative model. So no need to cry wolf wolf.

Here's a quick stab at a plain English version of the standards, with slight amendments to reverse some of the "watering down" that Cyc alluded to earlier in the thread.


A poll does not justify policy, plans or actions unless it meets the following criteria:
A relevant discussion thread must have been open for a minimum of 24 hours prior to the posting of the poll.
The poll must remain open for at least 24 hours.
The date and time at which the poll will end must be stated within the first post. This must be achieved by specifying the exact GMT hour and minute (i.e. 12:30 GMT), or by using a conditional statement (i.e. Poll ends at beginning of next turnchat).
If the poller wishes to set a quorum*, he or she must state this and specify the required number of votes in the first post.
Links to relevant discussion threads must be provided within the first post.
The poll must include an "Abstain" option.
A link to the poll must be posted in the Poll Index.

Better, less controversial polling can be achieved by adherence to the following optional practices:
Posting a draft of the poll in the relevant discussion thread and leaving it up for discussion for 24 hours before posting the actual poll thread.
Posting a link to the poll within relevant discussion threads.
Making the duration of the poll no less than 48 hours, or 72 hours for polls which run into the weekend.
Posting a link to the poll in the relevant department thread.



*Quorum = A minimum number of votes required to make a poll valid.

As to the discussions regarding enforcement of polling standards, in past demogames the PSC has at no point held official power over polling. In DG2 we set up a sub-group who were tasked to review every poll against the standards of the time, then post the results of that review in the poll thread along with any recommendations. It was then up to the poller whether to continue with a flawed poll or to request its closure and start a new, improved one. I would suggest that the DG6 incarnation of this body does not go any further than that in its attempts to promote adherence to the standards.

I am as yet undecided regarding whether or not we should attempt to enact the standards in law but, should we do so, I believe the power to police them would be better placed with the Judiciary.

I wholeheartedly agree with Eklektikos on the above posts. The PSC should only make their "professional" assessment of the poll based on fair and transparent objective criteria. The poller is free to correct the poll in the last minute. However, PSC is not a police organization, more like UN Arms inspectors telling their findings to another body.
Then it is up to the citizenry and the Judge Advocate to consider further legal action through normal procedures such as CCs and PIs. However, PSC will serve as a buffer providing evidence based on agreed polling standards, which will enable the legal proceedings to continue on the basis of objective criteria.

Simply put, a poller that delivers a flawed poll, is reviewed and remarked by PSC, and then it is up to the citizens and JA to file a CC or another legal action if the poll is violating other codes, WOTP or other key mechanisms the system depends on.
I cannot see why anyone calls this a police state, that is too much wolf-wolf for me.

The first post should summarize what the poll is about, at a minimum. Do not just post a link to discussion, and don't make references to ideas embedded in discussions without at least a minimal definition in the poll itself.
Don't use a list of fancy names for plans which are all similar, so that people can't distinguish the options, especially in poll options. Especially don't use a lot of words. Instead of "Big gnarly operation using the 3rd army of the people's elite mounted guard who used to be footsoldiers to recapture the glorious town of Shofragulum from the hated enemy who used to be our friends the Cartheginians" as a poll option, use "Recapture Shofragulum using Knights". :lol:

These I would also be inclined to add to the list, preferably in the form of a single mandatory standard worded along the following lines:
The first post must contain a clear, self-explanatory description of both the issue being polled and the options being presented to the citizenry.

These I would also be inclined to add to the list, preferably in the form of a single mandatory standard worded along the following lines:
The first post must contain a clear, self-explanatory description of both the issue being polled and the options being presented to the citizenry.

I believe this would make a great first guideline for the polling standards. The prior comments made by DS could be listed below this to clarify the point some. An additional helpful hint or two about the first post narrative could also be added.

Here's a quick stab at a plain English version of the standards, with slight amendments to reverse some of the "watering down" that Cyc alluded to earlier in the thread.


A poll does not justify policy, plans or actions unless it meets the following criteria:
A relevant discussion thread must have been open for a minimum of 24 hours prior to the posting of the poll.
The poll must remain open for at least 24 hours.
The date and time at which the poll will end must be stated within the first post. This must be achieved by specifying the exact GMT hour and minute (i.e. 12:30 GMT), or by using a conditional statement (i.e. Poll ends at beginning of next turnchat).
If the poller wishes to set a quorum*, he or she must state this and specify the required number of votes in the first post.
Links to relevant discussion threads must be provided within the first post.
The poll must include an "Abstain" option.
A link to the poll must be posted in the Poll Index.

Better, less controversial polling can be achieved by adherence to the following optional practices:
Posting a draft of the poll in the relevant discussion thread and leaving it up for discussion for 24 hours before posting the actual poll thread.
Posting a link to the poll within relevant discussion threads.
Making the duration of the poll no less than 48 hours, or 72 hours for polls which run into the weekend.
Posting a link to the poll in the relevant department thread.



*Quorum = A minimum number of votes required to make a poll valid.

I like this, Eklektikos. If your planning on starting the PSC thread with an opening paragraph or three, you could follow it with the above points and then start with the official list of guidelines, possibly using "1. The first post..." above.

I got confused with so many posts on the subject of mods modifying polls without the posters consent, but don't think I like the idea. That's not really the approach to take anyway. Instead, if the pollster refuses to update the poll, and it is truly so bad that the people cannot have been said to make a valid informed decision, then legal action should be taken in the form of a JR or even a CC if the intent was to deliberately influence events by misinformation.

I'm planning to be part of the PSC, assuming it works like the last one I participated in did. :)

if you really need someone else count me in, if you dont then kick me out... just lending my services ;)

actually this is a great idea, for example this could easily be a election issue:
Well my opponet seemed to receive an unsatisfactory mark on 3 of his polls and I have received an Outstanding mark on 2 of my polls. Voting for me would ensure proper polling.

Hold on, Black_Hole. Let me put my boots on. :D:lol: j/k

Welcome to the PSC. Same goes out to DaveShack.

Eklektikos' blurb above,"A poll does not justify policy, plans or actions unless it meets the following criteria:..." has nothing to do with policing a poll or requiring a change of it. It simply states that a body can not hold that poll up to the Courts or the Administration as a verifiable, bonifide binding poll. Because the poll does not meet the established standards of the PSC, niether the Courts or the Administration will recognize it as binding and only consider it informal at best. This does not mean that a Citizen's poll can not be binding. If the proper protocols have been followed and the poll meets or exceeds the PSC requirements, then it can be used to commit to policy or some other action.

Instead of having the PSC be exclusive, why not inclusive? Everyone can comment on polls. Surely most of us here are profficient and are willing to lend a helping hand.

Of course anyone can comment on a poll. If you read the first post in a poll and you have a question, then ask your question. If you think the polling choices are slanted in such a way as to favor a particular outcome, then say so. Of course, you should be giving the reason for your comment and hopefully you'll be polite in your questions and comments.

Honestly, I think the polling commission should be up for election, and people here only do
polling assessment, nothing else. If we are watering this out to become yet another citizen group, we better be without, since then we probably get 50 different interpretations on how to do this. Or we could transfer this function to the Judiciary, for that matter. Personally, I do not need to sit there, but there should be a limited number of accountable people doing this, otherwise we get pure anarchy.
These people should not be in government, governors or Judiciary (last unless Commission does the job).

Honestly, I think the polling commission should be up for election, and people here only do
polling assessment, nothing else. If we are watering this out to become yet another citizen group, we better be without, since then we probably get 50 different interpretations on how to do this. Or we could transfer this function to the Judiciary, for that matter. Personally, I do not need to sit there, but there should be a limited number of accountable people doing this, otherwise we get pure anarchy.
These people should not be in government, governors or Judiciary (last unless Commission does the job).

Now there's an idea. I like the possibility of the Judiciary acting as the polling comission as well. In DG5, the Judiciary really had nothing to do if people weren't filing JR's or CC's. This way, the Judiciary would become more of a full-time position, as well as allowing us to reduce the number of officials. Besides, if were going to have people judge polls, shouldn't they actually be judges?

Again Ashburnham, I agree, let us make this a mandate for the Judiciary. Maybe they can preempt JRs, CCs and PIs what have you by assuring polls are made appropriately.
I can vividly remember Mhcarver threatening me over a poll once - for good reason from what he knew- , a poll I intended to post anyways, so the common practice is that they already do so, preemptively signalling polls are bad. I can mention dozen of examples where the Judiciary folks have used their position and stature to make their view of the poll a source of organizational pressure. We can now take the full step.

As I see it, the PSC shouldn't be all that official - it would work better as a group of volunteers dedicated to the cause. I'm of the viewpoint that this body should be an advisory one rather than an 'official' one, a comission that exists to educate and promote the use of good polling practices.

We did have an election for the PSC in the past. Anyone could be a member of the citizen's group and use their right to free speech to comment on a poll, but there was also a group of people who had "The duty" for a term, and would provide the committee's official recommendation on proposed polls, and evaluation of actual polls.

Since membership is open to all, there is no reason the members of the judiciary couldn't be on the committee. Having additional elected members would ensure that if the court docket is full, poll evaluations don't suffer due to low priority.

The terms I was involved, we ran this election in the polls forum instead of the main forum, since it was not an official office in the constitution, but only a citizens group.

And, to put the above information into context and fill in certain gaps, here are the polling procedures as enacted within the DG2 Code of Standards:

Forum Poll Procedures

1. The following criteria are required for a poll to be binding:

a) Quorum levels must be met.

(i) Quorum for polls is 1/3 of the active census within the first 24 hours or;

(ii) 1/2 of the active census after the first 24 hours.


b) Approval levels must be achieved.

(i) In the first 24 hours a super plurality is required.
(a) To "win" the poll in the first 24 hours, a category must receive at least double the votes received by the next highest choice.

(ii) After the first 24 hours a simple plurality is required.

(iii) If "Abstain" ever holds plurality at the end of a poll, the poll is not binding.


2. The following criteria are required for a poll to be valid:

a) Discussion thread open for 24 hours, minimum.


*b) Poll type in the header and first post.
Meaning Formal or Informal. The only classification required is posting Informal (if it is) in the narrative.

**c) Poll end dates/times noted in the first post.
The number of days the poll is open should suffice. The time doesn't change.

(i) End dates/times can be conditional. (Example: poll ends at the beginning of the next chat turn)


d) Participation requirement (quorum needed) noted in the first post.


e) Link to relevant discussion threads in the first post.


f) Inclusion of an "Abstain" option.


***g) Link to the poll in the Poll Registry.
This can be removed. It's not a life or death issue.


3. The following criteria are preferred for all polls:

*a) Proposed poll, up for 24 hours minimum.
For any polls used for Constitutional or CoL issues (amendments) this should be required. Move to valid poll requirements.


**b) Poll posted with link from discussion thread.
This is in the valid poll requirements already. I understand why it's also listed here, but many may not, and this could cause legal problems.

c) Poll duration minimum of 24 hours (48 hours plus is preferred).

(i) If the poll runs into the weekend it is advised that the duration be extended by 24 hours for each weekend day. Forum participation is much lower on the weekends.


d) Link to the poll in the appropriate Department thread.


*4. Information polls - Do not have restrictions and cannot be used to justify policy, plans or actions.
I don't care for this rule. Informal/Informational polls can be very persuasive and should adhere to the same rules as others. Anyone can learn to write polls.

a) All polls posted by Leaders are considered Official unless specifically noted to be informational in the header and first post.

I've never been too fond of the "1st 24 hour" rules - something could be passed on the first 24 hour basis that would fail later on.

For binding, perhaps:
-- Contents of poll are matters within control of leader posting that poll -OR-
-- Leader affected by poll agrees to accept the results

For instructions, I don't think we need a quorum. Even if only 5 or 6 people vote in a poll (assuming it was posted in a timely manner), isn't that the Will of the People? What else could it be? Yes, most people didn't vote - so?

-- Ravensfire

I've never been too fond of the "1st 24 hour" rules - something could be passed on the first 24 hour basis that would fail later on.

For binding, perhaps:
-- Contents of poll are matters within control of leader posting that poll -OR-
-- Leader affected by poll agrees to accept the results

For instructions, I don't think we need a quorum. Even if only 5 or 6 people vote in a poll (assuming it was posted in a timely manner), isn't that the Will of the People? What else could it be? Yes, most people didn't vote - so?

-- Ravensfire

What would a timely matter be? A poll posted for declaration of war against another nation would surely need more than 5 or 6 people voting and more than 1 or 2 days vote time.

Yeah, we can make 2.d only apply to Amendment polls.

Super plurality works for me. I never saw a problem with it.

Your binding comment works for me too.

Thread brought over at the request of Provolution.

Chieftess, thank you very much :) No need to reinvent gunpowder here.

Gunpowder? What's that? All we have are these pieces of flint...

;)

Didn't want to make a new thread so I'll post in the most relevant one - GO VOTE FOR EXTERNAL CONSUL! There is a one vote lead, the drama is piling. If you haven't voted, you must, this is what the Demogame is about! Ok, back to the discussion...

Why is this even a debate, just have all the polls have yes/no/abstain options. For multiples just have all the choices and the abstain option. Is it really so hard?

Moderators should never be called in to police polls. The citizens of the Demo game should police their own game.

Allowing appeal to moderators means that folks who disagree with the majority can attempt to still enforce their view by skirting their government. Further, it puts the moderators in an untenable position, not to mention it encourages claims of bias.

Well, we got a polling commission.