When can play sessions be offline?
-- All play sessions must be on-line
-- Special Circumstances - w/ Citizen approval
-- Special Circumstances - w/o Citizen approval
-- At DP discretion - w/ Citizen approval
-- At DP discretion - w/o Citizen approval
-- All play sessions must be off-line
-- Abstain

This Poll will allow for multiple-selections, so vote for ALL options that you support.

Options with a Majority vote will win, if several options get majority both will be enacted.

However, should "All play sessions must be on-line" or "All play sessions must be off-line" win a majority those would override the other options given their "exclusive" nature.

Details of Special Circumstances (ie. Zero to One turn sessions, or any other condition that citizens wish to be written into the law) will be polled later should Special Circumstances pass. So if you have a condition in mind, I suggest voting for the Special Circumstances option you support the most. As goes with any clarification for DP's discretion if people feel it is required.

EDIT: Poll will close in 14 days.

All play sessions must be played Online. Offline chats should only happen if there is a special circumstances or at the DP's descression only with the approval of the citizens.

My selections in this poll reflect the options I'm willing to accept, if chosen by the majority. Conversely, the ones I did not select are the ones which would make me lose interest in remaining active.

Ah, I misvoted... I intended to vote for 'At DP discretion - w/o Citizen approval' instead of 'At DP discretion - w/ Citizen approval.' If a passing moderator would care to change that, I'd appreciate it...

Conversely, the ones I did not select are the ones which would make me lose interest in remaining active.
Ditto. Thats one thing that would turn me off from the Demogame would be that all sessions must me offline.

Ditto. Thats one thing that would turn me off from the Demogame would be that all sessions must me offline.

I understand but please note that there are currently 4 votes out of 12 for mandatory off line sessions. While not a majority (and not a complete vote) this seems like a significant enough proportion so that those who want to require online sessions should take heed.

Wow, this is a really long duration poll.

I would like to suggest a clarification on how the results should be interpreted. I hope this will be acceptable to those who have different preferences than my own. Rest assured that this suggestion is not driven by which options are currently leading, rather it is based on the course of action which better reflects the result no matter which options come out on top.

There are 4 basic options on the table (require offline, offline optional by law, offline optional at dp discretion, require online). The "require online" and "require offline" options look to be defeated at this point in time, though we must let the poll run its scheduled duration. For the sake of this discussion, I'll proceed as though neither of the two extreme positions gets more than 50%.

The other two options, "special circumstances" and "DP discretion" each have with and without citizen approval as modifiers. The votes on both options with both modifiers (all 4 combinations) are currently above 50%. According to the 1st post, all 4 combinations would be enacted, but that doesn't make sense because citizen approval must either be required by the law or not required.

My proposed solution is:

From the two "special circumstances" options, the higher number of votes determines if citizen approval is required to play offline or not. Ditto for the two "DP discretion" options.

If the citizen approval dimension of either kind of offline session is tied, or there is significant disagreement with scoring it this way, then we'll repoll using one poll for special circumstances and one poll for DP discretion.

OK, that was kinda complicated -- one reason I don't really like all these multi-choice polls. :crazyeye:

Wow, this is a really long duration poll.

I would like to suggest a clarification on how the results should be interpreted. I hope this will be acceptable to those who have different preferences than my own. Rest assured that this suggestion is not driven by which options are currently leading, rather it is based on the course of action which better reflects the result no matter which options come out on top.

There are 4 basic options on the table (require offline, offline optional by law, offline optional at dp discretion, require online). The "require online" and "require offline" options look to be defeated at this point in time, though we must let the poll run its scheduled duration. For the sake of this discussion, I'll proceed as though neither of the two extreme positions gets more than 50%.

The other two options, "special circumstances" and "DP discretion" each have with and without citizen approval as modifiers. The votes on both options with both modifiers (all 4 combinations) are currently above 50%. According to the 1st post, all 4 combinations would be enacted, but that doesn't make sense because citizen approval must either be required by the law or not required.

My proposed solution is:

From the two "special circumstances" options, the higher number of votes determines if citizen approval is required to play offline or not. Ditto for the two "DP discretion" options.

If the citizen approval dimension of either kind of offline session is tied, or there is significant disagreement with scoring it this way, then we'll repoll using one poll for special circumstances and one poll for DP discretion.

OK, that was kinda complicated -- one reason I don't really like all these multi-choice polls. :crazyeye:
I am strongly against that interperatation, it was not stated in the first post...
If this is the case, I will remove my votes from both "w/ Citizen Approval" options
The first post said that any option that had a majority of votes would be enacted, and if "Offline w/o citizen approval" (bohh forms) has a majority of votes it won't be enacted under your proposal and the current results.

I strongly believe we must keep what was posted in the original post:
Options with a Majority vote will win, if several options get majority both will be enacted.

I think we may end up doing another Run-off poll. From this it definately has been shown that we will have DP's perogative and Special circumstances, just a matter of what and how. Figure out the "Special Circumstances" we wish to have, and do a poll for each option, with the following options.

Yes - With approval
Yes - w/o Approval
No

For each option, no multiple choice, for No to win it must recieve a 50% majority or greater, aside from that, overall general majority vote wins.

DP's perogative would also get it's own poll.

Shoulda just done it this way to begin with :wallbash:, well third time's the charm :sad:

And no I'm not just trying to redo/rewrite the poll until I get what I want... :mischief:

Another issue I do see, if it's DP perogative, and we have special situations, is the DP forced to do offline in those special situations then? Given DP's choice (particularly without approval), there is really no need for special situations unless we want to require offline sessions, or specifically want to require approval for special cases...

As such, I think it might be a good idea to poll DP alone before actually polling each Special Circumstance... but we need more discussion on specifically WHAT circumstances we want.

Is 0-x turns the only one we want? (and FYI that would probobly require a run-off poll as well to determine exactly what "x" is 1 or 2?)

I am strongly against that interperatation, it was not stated in the first post...
If this is the case, I will remove my votes from both "w/ Citizen Approval" options
The first post said that any option that had a majority of votes would be enacted, and if "Offline w/o citizen approval" (bohh forms) has a majority of votes it won't be enacted under your proposal and the current results.

I strongly believe we must keep what was posted in the original post:

If it were possible to write rules which both require citizen approval and not require it, then I'd certainly agree with you that we should keep the original post criteria.

Would you be against that interpretation if the w/o citizen approval items were both winning? I'm going to hold you to this objection if the vote changes BTW. ;)

Don't forget there are about 4 more days to vote. Did I mention this is a very long poll duration? :eek:

Since there is disagreement, I'm with Falcon02 in thinking two runoffs are required if it remains this close, one for special, citizen approval yes vs. no and one for DP yes vs. no. It's disappointing that it would be necessary but I guess not surprising.

Why are we going to repoll it? I don't see the confusion, we should follow the instructions in the original post, I and many others would have voted differently if Daveshack's proposal was in the first post, but it was not...

And Daveshack it wouldn't have mattered if w/o citizen approval items were winning, that just means designated players could play off line without citizen approval, which is the way I feel.

I'm confused.

Your objection is this:

Special with citizen approval has more than 50% (and has a higher %)
Special without citizen approval has more than 50% (lower %)

You want the law to say "special with or without citizen approval" which is most certainly not the same thing as enacting both laws. If the law is written as I'm showing here, then no approval is ever needed even though it has a higher vote total right now.

It's a logical impossibility, unless you'd care to show how a law can be worded so that an offline session would be disallowed if the citizens don't approve.

Edit: Maybe I confused you though, so here is something more concrete:

Right now as the vote stands we would have:

Play is normally conducted on-line in a chat, except that citizens may approve an offline session at the DP's discretion, or when any special circumstances further defined by law are met.

Problem is those who "Prefer" w/o citizen approval can (and I think did) vote for both, because while they'd prefer the one, they'd be satisfied with the other (as I asked them to vote in the first post).

However, as a result both options would lose some votes as people don't vote both, just their preferance.

For DP choice, 5 people (thus far) voted both. If all (extreme case) those "prefered w/o approval" then w/ approval would then have an unfair advantage, and not truely reflect the views of those who voted. There's the problem I see.

Also I see no need for another generalized "Special circumstances" just the specific circumstances themselves. There's really no point in allowing "special circumstances" if we don't know what those special circumstances are... We're gonna have to do the specific polls anyway, why add in a redundent poll to essentially prove what this poll has already shown, that as a whole special circumstances are permissible.

Also, do we want ALL special circumstances to require approval or all to be w/o approval? I'm not sure, we should fit the implementation to the circumstance, and not lock each case to one or the other.

I'm confused.

Your objection is this:

Special with citizen approval has more than 50% (and has a higher %)
Special without citizen approval has more than 50% (lower %)

You want the law to say "special with or without citizen approval" which is most certainly not the same thing as enacting both laws. If the law is written as I'm showing here, then no approval is ever needed even though it has a higher vote total right now.

It's a logical impossibility, unless you'd care to show how a law can be worded so that an offline session would be disallowed if the citizens don't approve.

Edit: Maybe I confused you though, so here is something more concrete:

Right now as the vote stands we would have:

Play is normally conducted on-line in a chat, except that citizens may approve an offline session at the DP's discretion, or when any special circumstances further defined by law are met.
no, you got it correct above, If w/o citizen approval has over 50%, then it should be enacted, is what I am saying, following this:

Options with a Majority vote will win, if several options get majority both will be enacted.
So because over half the people want something, it will not be enacted?
Isn't the majority always correct?
We must follow what was posted in the first post, you can't decide how to interpert data after its been polled, because I (and the other 4 people falcon mentioned) would have voted differently, so "w/o approval" would have won.

By the same logic, since with citizen approval has over 50% it must also be enacted. You can't both require citizen approval and not require it.

We will have more polls, it's the only way to distinguish the vote. Chalk up another one for "don't use a multi-choice poll when two single choice polls will do the job".

If I might make a suggestion, let's see some mock polls in this thread before the actual ones are opened, so we don't drop into the same problem again. ;)

This poll reminds me of the saying be careful what you ask for because you might get it? The poll was flawed regarding citizen approval for off line sessions. DaveShack is right saying we can't have a rule that both requires and does not require citizen approval for something. Please, let's not even try to interpret this - that will get us only arguments. The flawed part has to be repolled. The General raises a good point - do we want all or only certain offline sessions to require approval? I think we need more discussion before we repoll.

Here's a corker for you all to consider. What if the majority decides they want an offline session but the DP doesn't? What do we do then?

First, Black_Hole, I'm not trying to say "w/o citizen approval" should win. All I'm saying right now is how this poll is set up, the results aren't really all that decisive. As far as I know the "w/ citizen approval" option will gain the majority in a non-multiple-choice poll.

Well, I think we can go ahead and do a DP option re-poll though, little more straight forward (so long as it's seperate).

Should DP's have the option to have a offline sessions to their preferance?
Yes - Citizen's Approval
Yes - Without Citizen's Approval
No

With Note that the "Yes votes" will be grouped as to whether or not we will allow it, and then the Majority of the Yes options to determine approval.

No should not be an option unless all sessions must be online recieves a majority of the votes. According to the current vote, a majority have voted to allow off-line sessions at the discretion of the DP. All we need now is to decide if the DP must get citizen approval first. I think this could use a bit more discussion as well. What form is this approval to take? At one extreme we could force an approval poll with a super majority requirement. At the other extreme the DP could announce an off-line session ahead of time with approval assumed and a mechanism for citizens to veto the idea.

The latter system is actually more in line with the votes of this poll for both DP discretion and special circumstances (since both requires and doesn't require citizen approval are winning majorities). We can assume citizen approval is there and build in a veto process. We would need to discuss what that process would be. Would a veto poll be required or would X number of citizens posting objections constitute a formal veto?

In any event, please let's not repoll until this one ends.

Including "No" is mostly a formality, I do not expect it to win given the results here, but I feel to accurately poll it it should be included.

I got no problem with waiting until this poll ends (not too far away anyway). Earliest I probobly woulda posted it anyway would be tommarrow or the 2nd.

Personally, I don't quite see the need to poll the mechanisms of the approval until after we establish if we need approval or not.

Granted we could get it all over with in one fell swoop, but after messing up 2 polls in a row by trying to do that.... I'm thinking more of a K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple Stuipid) philosophy...

On a side note though, with DP discretion at least I have to agree with you, approval assumed with veto option... though on a simular note, if that's the case, there's not much difference between that and without approval...

I agree with donsig, there should not be a no option on the new poll. The vote is 8-4 in favor of allowing offline sessions at DP's discretion, but the conditions are unclear.

When should offline sessions at the DP's discretion be allowed?

Only when the citizens have approved an offline session
At any time, without requiring citizen approval
Abstain


Those who still don't want offline sessions at all can register their continuing disapproval via abstain, but thereby forfeit their right to participate in deciding if citizen approval should be needed.

The special circumstances poll needs to be redone as well, the same way. Its vote is 9-3 in favor of allowing offline for special circumstances, but with and without citizen approval is undecided.

As for the approval mechanism itself, I was kinda thinking about a supermajority needed to approve an offline session. :satan:

:joke:

Or perhaps all this talk of supermajorities should be dropped and we can stick with a simple yes/no and assume DP's will only use offline when there is a reason, and citizens will only disapprove it when there is a reason. For example, I would definitely disapprove offline for the creation day and 1st real play session. They damn well better be online, with all the traditional pomp, circumstance, hoopla, good clean fun, and suggestions from the peanut gallery. :cool:

Who's going to do this? I would just open the 2 additional polls but don't want to mash any toes. :)

Sorry, been a Busy week (and really will continue to be for a while :( )

When should offline sessions at the DP's discretion be allowed?

Only when the citizens have approved an offline session
At any time, without requiring citizen approval
Abstain



This list is okay, got one problem though, I assume the "at any time" option would include a veto allowance? I think we can safely say yes, argument would probobly be on the mechanisms of that veto though... which could be addressed later.

So long as that's covered, looks good to me.

Let's add this to the description in the 1st post. It should be reviewed for bias. I am trying very hard to fully disclose what the options mean without tainting the vote, but someone else needs to read it and determine if that's successful or not. :D

With citizen approval could mean citizens must vote in advance for the session to be offline, or it could mean a veto mechanism where offline sessions are assumed to be approved unless vetoed. The decision of which mechanism to use would be made in a future poll, if this option wins.

Without citizen approval inherently means no veto, the DP can choose to make any session offline and there is no permissible mechanism to prevent it, other than to not vote for someone in an election.

Without citizen approval inherently means no veto, the DP can choose to make any session offline and there is no permissible mechanism to prevent it, other than to not vote for someone in an election.

That's how I read that option.

My problem is, I would support Veto power, but don't like a poll each time either...

Nor do I think there shouldn't be any citizen way of preventing a offline session

I think you got the "Without Citizen Approval" option description right.

The "With Citizen Approval" should be with a DP initiated poll. The citizens should know which Presidents or DP have been or are wanting to play a session off-line. So they would be looking for approval polls from that person. If citizens are interested in keeping the sessions on-line, those citizens will watch for these request polls and vote accordingly. If the DP doesn't post a poll and get approval, the session stays on-line

I think we had decided to have a 1st poll which asks if we want citizen approval of some form to be required. If that poll shows that approval is not required, then we don't need to go any further. I'm going to watch for comments to the descriptive text for a few more hours and then start the two polls if nobody else has done that (one each for "DP discretion" and "special circumstances").

If the poll shows that some form of citizen approval should be required, then we can debate and vote on whether it should be "mother may I" or "veto" style. ;)

I think it might be necessary to reword the 2nd description to avoid references to veto:

With citizen approval could mean citizens must vote in advance for the session to be offline, or it could mean a veto mechanism where offline sessions are assumed to be approved unless vetoed. The decision of which mechanism to use would be made in a future poll, if this option wins.

Without citizen approval means the DP can choose to make any session offline and there is no permissible mechanism to prevent it, other than to not vote for someone in an election.

I don't believe you need another poll to find out if citizn approval is wanted, DS. The poll above clearly shows that both special circumstances and normal play @ DP descretion both need citizen approval.

I also believe that a lack of VETO poll is not a clear sign of citizen approval. Let the DP who wants off-line session get the approval they need to proceed. The norm is on-line, the exception is off-line. Make the exception initiate an approval poll.

I'm not really understanding where you're coming from here...

If the poll shows that some form of citizen approval should be required, then we can debate and vote on whether it should be "mother may I" or "veto" style. ;)

I would like to formally propose that we include the "Simon says" form of approval as well. We must be fair.

I understand the reasoning for a new poll but Cyc has a pont - needs citizen approval got a majority of votes already. I also agree with Black_Hole who pointed out that does not need citizen approval got a majority of the votes. (I think I did vote for both options myself.) Why don't we just come up with a veto method (which is the closest we can come to both having and not having citizen approval) and poll that to see if it's acceptable?

Suggested veto mechanism: DP announces ahead of time that off-line session is planned. (Three day notice?) Veto should be accomplished without a poll but we might want to require more than one citizen's objection to the off-line session (3 or 5?).

I agree that "needs approval" got a win over "doesn't need approval" in both the "DP Decides" and "Special Circumstances" part of the vote. However, the interpretation standard of "all options with more than 50% win" in the OP precludes the simplest way to address the problem.

Black_hole's argument is that the vote might have been different if it was a strictly one or the other poll. That argument may be valid, and the only way to test it is to run a new poll.

I'd actually prefer to get on with the preapproval vs veto issue, if objections to scoring this poll as a win for "approval needed" were lifted. Or we could go with the "preponderance of discussion" method saying that 80% of us would like to do it that way, and the 20% will just have to get over it. :rolleyes:

If you take out all the double votes on any given issue, "with citizen approval" would win.....

If you take out all the double votes on any given issue, "with citizen approval" would win.....

Well, I voted for both but prefer the without approval method. Who else voted for both and what is your preference?

Followup polls:

DP Discretion (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=200317)
Special Circumstances (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=200318)

Well, I voted for both but prefer the without approval method. Who else voted for both and what is your preference?

Nevermind donsig, DaveShack would rather post polls than discuss things.

Nevermind donsig, DaveShack would rather post polls than discuss things.


That will teach you people to vote yes and no on the same issue....:eek: :nono: :dubious:

That will teach you people to vote yes and no on the same issue....:eek: :nono: :dubious:

Point taken!