View Full Version : Term 6 Election - Designated Players


Sigma
May 27, 2006, 06:12 PM
Term 6 Election for the Designated Players

The Designated Player plays the save according to instructions that were posted by officials. The Designated Player must post an Instruction Thread in which officials will post their instructions, and then play the save following the instructions to the best of his/her ability. The Designated Player may choose whether to hold his/her turnchat online or offline. Following the turnchat, the Designated Player should post as much information as he can, including a summary, log, screenshots, and the save. The Designated Player should do all of this in a timely manner so as not to delay the game.

Link to Nomination Thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=172039

Please vote for every citizen who you feel should serve as a Designated Player for the next term. This is a multiple-choice poll, so vote for as many candidates as you like!

Options:

Sigma
Vind2
DaveShack
GeorgeOP
CivGeneral
Oldbus
ice2k4
Abstain


This poll has been marked private because it is an election poll.
Elections will be open for 3 days, and will close on May 30th at approximately 8:00 PM EDT (00:00 UTC).

Should they choose to write them, the candidates' platforms will appear below.

Good luck to all of the candidates!

dutchfire
May 28, 2006, 07:50 AM
how many votes do they need?

Sigma
May 28, 2006, 09:51 AM
I'm sorry, I should have specified. A candidate needs to receive more than 50% of the non-abstain votes to be elected DP.

Edit: should be more than 50%, not just 50%

Black_Hole
May 28, 2006, 09:59 AM
I'm sorry, I should have specified. A candidate needs to receive at least 50% of the non-abstain votes to be elected DP.
sorry to point out a technicality Mr. Censor, but they actually need more than 50%, so getting 50% would not elect them

Sigma
May 28, 2006, 10:03 AM
Whoops, I guess that's what "over 50.00%" means. ;) I guess with our CoL I got used to looking for 50.01% for "over 50%". Interestingly enough, I don't think we've ever had a situation where a DP received only half of the votes.

Vind2
May 28, 2006, 10:34 AM
Looks like i'm at excactly 50% :(

Swissempire
May 28, 2006, 11:07 AM
Up to 60%
If i recall correctly, we have only ever had 1 person not be elected...

BCLG100
May 28, 2006, 11:34 AM
57.14% now, not sure why your down though

Sigma
May 28, 2006, 11:05 PM
The abstain votes bring it down, but technically we throw those out for the calculuation of 50%.

Vind2
May 29, 2006, 07:17 AM
yay 60% :D

ice2k4
May 29, 2006, 07:47 AM
When you make polls, I wish the forum had a null vote option, where you wouldn't have to make an abstain vote, and null votes aren't counted. Would make it a lot easier =/

Vind2
May 29, 2006, 11:14 AM
It's gone down to 59.09% but no one else has voted :confused:

DaveShack
May 30, 2006, 12:54 AM
This is a first, at present there are no ties in the vote. If this holds up, we won't have to use the rather silly but necessary tie breaker mechanism of 1st accepted nomination goes first.

CivGeneral
May 30, 2006, 01:21 AM
I am glad to see the citizens are going to give me another shot at being the DP :).

Chieftess
May 30, 2006, 05:20 AM
Up to 60%
If i recall correctly, we have only ever had 1 person not be elected...

2 actually, IIRC. Back in term 2 I believe.

Swissempire
May 30, 2006, 12:15 PM
2 actually, IIRC. Back in term 2 I believe.
I'm thinking of Blackbrd, who are you talking about:hmm:

BCLG100
May 30, 2006, 12:49 PM
CG didnt make it one time, i wouldnt worry though vind back upto 60% :)

robboo
May 30, 2006, 03:03 PM
looks like you are all going to make it....yipppeee

Donovan Zoi
May 30, 2006, 03:56 PM
The abstain votes bring it down, but technically we throw those out for the calculuation of 50%.

Why make it any easier than it already is? :confused: The DP vote is pretty much just a virtual love-in right now anyway.

I still contend that we should just allow anyone who signs up in the nomination thread to be a DP, as watching these silly DP elections go forward is a waste of time. Why should we put any weight behind this constitutionally unaccountable position anyway? Let anyone who wants to play do their worst to our great nation and yet live to tell the tale to their grandkids! :lol:

You screw up; doesn't matter because it's not an elected position. You screw up a few terms ago? No matter, the people will always forgive (or forget)! :love:

Either hoist some accountability onto this position or stop these elections. There is no excitement in watching them unfold whatsoever, as this game has veered away from its political origin. Just like second grade, everyone's a winner now.

greekguy
May 30, 2006, 03:58 PM
Well, I only voted for 5 of the 7 candidates, and now that i think about it, i probably should've only voted for 4.

Sigma
May 30, 2006, 04:07 PM
Donovan Zoi,

I'm currently in the process of proposing an amendment to revamp our Designated Player Pool. It includes giving the President more power and resposibility in managing the DP's, and also a process of removing a DP from the pool. I'm waiting for the next term Judiciary to take the next step since we're so close to the end of the term.

Unfortunately, accountability only goes so far. We can't kick anyone out of the demogame (unless they violate the forum rules). We can't ban someone from running for office. All we can do is keep holding elections, and just vote to not re-elect any DP's who break the rules.

Sure it may not seem like more than a slap on the wrist, but the "humiliation" of being removed from office, or being one of the few DP's to not be elected, is punishment enough. And as long as these elections don't slow the game down (they're the same time as other elections, and have no tiebreakers), we have no reason to get rid of them.

Donovan Zoi
May 30, 2006, 04:24 PM
Thanks for the quick response, Sigma.

My call for an end to the DP election was more of a wake-up call to the people to put some thought into who they are voting for. I actually like the changes you have proposed and look forward to the upcoming discussion. I hope I can make myself available.

For the record, I voted for 6 of the 7 listed here, so my bark may be a bit worse than my bite. It's just that after nearly four years at this, I grow tired of watching one particular cycle repeat itself again and again and again and.........

Vind2
May 30, 2006, 04:33 PM
On second thought i might have not voted for my self :blush:

Sigma
May 30, 2006, 06:25 PM
This poll has closed, but there seems to be a discrepancy in the numbers, so I cannot validate the poll at this time.

There were 26 total votes. 4 of those were abstain votes, yet GeorgeOP managed to receive 24 votes. This doesn't quite add up. ;) I'm sure it was someone who checked all the boxes, but just to be sure we may need an investigation.

However, even if you subtract 4 (the abstain votes) from the total vote count and each candidate's vote total, every candidate still has over 50% of the vote, with Vind2 receiving the least at 12 out of 22. Therefore, I believe that all seven candidates were elected, even with the discrepancy.

Vind2
May 30, 2006, 06:28 PM
Some people may have also clicked abstain accidentaly.

DaveShack
May 30, 2006, 06:40 PM
For the record, I voted for 6 of the 7 listed here, so my bark may be a bit worse than my bite. It's just that after nearly four years at this, I grow tired of watching one particular cycle repeat itself again and again and again and.........

Is that the cycle of DZ jumping on a soapbox yelling about a supposed problem and then fades away after a few weeks, only to show up on a soapbox a few months later? :p

Sorry, couldn't resist. :lol::lol:

BCLG100
May 30, 2006, 06:43 PM
Some people may have also clicked abstain accidentaly.


i did, then unclicked it before i voted.

Swissempire
May 30, 2006, 06:50 PM
Poor Abstain, only got 15%:(

ice2k4
May 30, 2006, 07:05 PM
If this does have to go to another poll, count me out. If not leave me in.

Donovan Zoi
May 30, 2006, 07:05 PM
Is that the cycle of DZ jumping on a soapbox yelling about a supposed problem and then fades away after a few weeks, only to show up on a soapbox a few months later? :p

Sorry, couldn't resist. :lol::lol:

None taken, Dave. ;) It's the only fun I get lately. :lol:

I'll try to be a bit more de-, um, constructive this time out. :groucho:

Sigma
May 30, 2006, 07:48 PM
If this does have to go to another poll, count me out. If not leave me in.

I do not intend to post another poll. But even though my mathematical logic says that all seven DPs should be elected regardless, I think we should have an investigation by the mods just to make it official.

GeorgeOP
May 30, 2006, 09:49 PM
Would there be a problem if I set up a turnchat for this Saturday? I'm willing to skip my turn if someone else is to run it. I want to make sure we keep the game going.

Sigma
May 30, 2006, 09:52 PM
You were ahead by a clear margin, so there's no doubt that you'd be a DP for next term. Go ahead and set it up. The investigation (if any) would be finished by then.

dutchfire
May 31, 2006, 12:21 AM
You should remove the abstain button next time, it makes calculation impossible.

DaveShack
May 31, 2006, 12:54 AM
In my capacity as a citizen, I recommend the results of this poll be counted as though the number of abstain votes which also contain a vote for one or more candidates is immaterial. This is the most obvious answer, and it is the technically most accurate. From this position I cannot predict what the judiciary might rule if there were a challenge, but it seems the right course of action.

Just use the percentage calculated by the forum software.

DaveShack
May 31, 2006, 12:56 AM
You should remove the abstain button next time, it makes calculation impossible.

That would remove the capability to vote "none of the above". If only one person accepted the nomination and there were no abstain option, it would guarantee a 100% result for the one candidate, even if the candidate is the only one voting and everyone else abstains by not voting.

dutchfire
May 31, 2006, 09:24 AM
What about a poll for every candidate, with Yes, No and abstain.
It's more work, but it will work ok.

Sigma
May 31, 2006, 09:27 AM
I am going to go ahead and validate this poll, because I believe that even if the Judiciary were to review this poll and have an investigation conducted, the results would not change.