One complaint we have in nearly every demogame is against unfair polling practices. How do we define what is fair, preferably without a hugely complicated definition? What should we do about unfair polls? What should we do if opponents of a fair poll try to undermine its credibility by falsely claiming it is unfair?

I don't have all the answers. It may be the opinion of some that I don't have any of the answers. :lol:

So, what say you citizens? How do you want fair to be defined?

If you think a poll isn't fair, you can override it with a new poll, at least according to the constitution we had, and the one we're polling at the moment.

Good idea... We can have a poll about what people think about polls if their fair or unfair...:p

If you think a poll isn't fair, you can override it with a new poll, at least according to the constitution we had, and the one we're polling at the moment.

Yes and I think that's the best method. We do have to learn to accept the results of polls, even bad and unfair ones. As dutchfire points out we can always fix up a poll and resubmit it.

Unfair polls are like obscene things - we might not be able to define them but we'll know them when we see them!

We've had a lot of experience making polls. I suggest we make up a template or series of templates that exemplify good polls and encourage people to use them - with out making rules or laws to enforce that. Let's see what happens before we make rules we may not need.

Another thing we can do is encourage the use of mock polls in the discussion thread. This has worked well in the past for amendments and there's no reason we can't do them for regular initiatives. Allowing everyone to take a look at the proposed poll will help the discussion along, get people thinking how they would vote in the poll, help us to hammer out interpretation issues before the poll is actually posted and generally give us fairer polls since unfair aspects can be pointed out before the thing is posted. Again, I would not make this a rule unless we see a big problem occurring.

Also, I think we should make it a rule that no one is allowed to change a poll vote once it is cast.

Finally, by ensuring an abstain option is present and counting abstain votes towards a majority we can block unfair polls by logging enough abstain votes.

Also, I think we should make it a rule that no one is allowed to change a poll vote once it is cast.

What about mis-clicks and/or a wrong interprentation of the option?
I'd say that you're only allowed to change your vote once, and within 5 hours of voting (is this technically possible?)

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

This is another all or nothing issue, where I'm firmly and unmovably in the middle. I flat out refuse to say that all informational polls are bad and none can be allowed. Take the current poll:

How would you respond to playing the DemoGame on Warlords?

I would be more active than if we used Vanilla.
I would be just as active as if we used Vanilla.
I would not be as active as if we used Vanilla.
I would not participate in the DemoGame at all.


This poll is NOT asking if we should play Warlords, it's asking for a hypothetical reaction if we were to take that step. There is no way such a poll can be binding, because it's not asking an actionable question.

If you really want there to be no informational polls, you have two choices.

Try to tell people they're not allowed to post them. That's against the forum rules btw. You do have a recourse against spam polls of course, but the case against legitimate ones is shaky.
Find some way to convert an actionless poll to be binding, even though it effectively says nothing. How's that fair?


Now, are some informational polls bad? Do some people misuse them at some times? Of course they do. I won't stand in the way of taking an otherwise valid poll which claims to be informational and making it binding.

Edit: A rule saying that actionable polls are binding regardless of whether they are marked informational would be acceptable. My real concern is with saying nobody can post a non-actionable (and therefore inherently informational) poll.

That's a hint though, talking about it does not make it a rule. :)

This poll is NOT asking if we should play Warlords, it's asking for a hypothetical reaction if we were to take that step. There is no way such a poll can be binding, because it's not asking an actionable question.

If you really want there to be no informational polls, you have two choices.
Try to tell people they're not allowed to post them. That's against the forum rules btw. You do have a recourse against spam polls of course, but the case against legitimate ones is shaky.
Find some way to convert an actionless poll to be binding, even though it effectively says nothing. How's that fair?

Now, are some informational polls bad? Do some people misuse them at some times? Of course they do. I won't stand in the way of taking an otherwise valid poll which claims to be informational and making it binding.
i totally agree with you man.. when I looked at that poll i didnt quite understand the point of it.. it didnt really bother me.. but what did bother me was the fact that it did nothing to help solve an issue involvning the demo game.. oh well.. im sure things will start smoothly
peace,
Shattered

I think we need a gentleman's agreement to limit the types of polls we post. (That wouldn't be against forum rules would it?) I don't really think the answer is to tell people they can't post a certian type of poll. The answer is to agree that ALL polls are to be considered official and binding. For polls that have no actionable component (like the how do you feel about poll) what's wrong with just considering it official and binding and move on? Since there is no actionable component we're not bound to do anything anyway, right? I do hope we can avoid polls that ask So, how do you feel about declaring war on the Mongols? :rolleyes:

Ravensfire is right though that even polls with questions like that one should influence our game play.

If you feel too strongly about something, then don't poll it! Your questions will be affected by your stand against the issue.

i think the best way to ensure polling is fair, is for each people to comment on their vote, you shouldn't vote if you can't explain your choice, so post it... that way, polling will be fair, no one can vote 20 times to cheat the poll score.

and a poll is a way to know what people thinks, not what we ARE going to do... unless the poll question specifically says that this will be the next course of action...


just adding my 2 golds per turn

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

One of the core rights of citizens is the right of Free Speech. That includes the right NOT to speak. Often, I feel my vote explains itself. I rarely have the urge to post simply to state what I voted for. Some of our citizens are lurkers - they prefer to read and vote, but not post. That should be considered perfectly acceptable!

yeah sorry, guess i went a little old school on that thought. every democratic system let the anonimity of the voters to actually stop any attempt by the "wannabes" to force people to vote for them. since we are playing a democratic game, votes dont need to be explained.

forcing people to say what they voted for would be fascism...:king: :mad:

I like having this specified instead of being an unwritten agreement. :)

In the requirements section, polls must be open for at least 2 days. Our more legally inclined citizens would argue that without the "at least" this would mean every poll must be exactly 2 days. :rolleyes:

We've had problems with people reacting to "should" the same as "must". I don't know what the cure for this is, just mentioning it in case something can be done.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

Mods (maybe admin) CAN view private polls
Mods (maybe admin) CAN edit poll numbers.
:D But I trust all of our mods (TF does)

How about, "a minimum of 2 days"?

Sure, any equivalent wording will do. :)


I think I've got the Requirements using "must" and "will", and the Guidelines using "should". Requirements must be done, Guidelines are optional, but encouraged. The only two uses of 'may' in the Requirements look acceptable to me, as one is 'may not', the other is public v private.

I understand what you've written and personally, feel it is OK, but other legendary figures have said they thought "should" means "must". Perhaps a global definition could be added (not just for this initiative) stating the difference, so there can be no confusion?

Also while we're on the subject of slippery word definitions, unfortunately there is likely to be confusion about the definitions of "neutral", "clear", and possibly even "obvious" and "relevant". :lol:

I like what you have written Ravensfire, mainly because of the compromise.

I just want to make it clear though, that your act/clause does not restrict users from posting polls (that may be used as informational, just not officially informational) that have a question that can not be technically binding. The example I'll use is the Warlords vs. Vanilla poll I created that was so controversial.

If I'm an official, and I feel that we need more information towards something, like let's say the amount of participation we would gain or lose by using Warlords, to better provide the citizens with the information on the effects of our actions, than I see no reason why I should not be allowed to post it. If you haven't realized, that before the posting of that poll, most people were pro-warlords. After posting that poll, many people switched back to saying vanilla, because they realized the consequence of choosing warlords. Now you may say that the poll accomplished nothing, because it was only informational, and did not decide whether we use warlords or vanilla, it certainly helped us to not make a blind decision.

Maybe informational polls should not be used on in-game decisions, but decisions that pertain to our laws and government should surely be allowed to be accompanied by an informational poll.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

I'm against trying to pass such a sweeping initiative. We all want fair polls but how do we enforce this:

All poll options and the initial post will be stated in a clear and neutral manner? What is clear to DaveShack is not always clear to me, and visa-versa.

We should take it slowly. Can we come up with some sort of modular system where we can poll individual components of the requirements? Even better (I think) would be just trying (at first) to write up guidelines. If we came up with good guidelines and encouraged everyone to use them (by pointing out how a poll differed from the guidlines) we might not need enforceable rules.

The more rules we make the more problems we'll have. Please let's move more deliberately on this issue.

Ravensfire, a pretty good initiative but I agree with donsig that taking it slowly may be a better way to go.

I have some questions of an historical nature about polls. For a long time we’ve usually suggested/required that an “abstain” option be made part of every poll. How did this come about? And what’s the function? If I don’t want to vote in a poll – if I want to abstain – I just don’t vote. If I don’t want to vote for a specific reason – perhaps I think the poll is unfair – then I don’t have to vote but I have the option to post why I’m not voting. In most cases I don’t understand what an “abstain” vote is for or against. Is it someone who doesn’t have an opinion but wants to vote anyway? If it someone who objects to the fact the question is being raised in the poll? Is it someone who objects to the manner in which the poll is written? What does the vote mean?

Also, why aren’t all votes public? I do understand why we might not want to make public our votes that directly concern an individual (election & impeachment votes). But why aren’t all other votes public? Even though sometimes we’ve devised some pretty fancy constitutions that help us play at a representative democracy, really the constitutions have always made clear that we’re a direct democracy (Will of the People). We’re all citizen-legislators; why should we hide our beliefs from each other? I’m not making a criticism here; I’m asking for a rationale because I just don’t understand.

Last, ice24k’s poll on Vanilla vs. Warlords generated some criticism because it wasn’t a “legal” poll. I’ve read the explanation that in the past some officials have posted “unofficial opinion polls” then tried to use those to justify actions that - had they polled them - would have been disallowed. Hence, I gather, a movement that polls are sacred and must be for official purposes only (am I correct on this?). What I think I’m reading is informational polls (especially from officials) are therefore illegal. What I think I’m reading is that every poll must be official, and the results must be adhered to. This makes sense in cases where it’s relevant.

I believe I understand the behavior this policy is trying to prevent, and I agree with the aim. However, citizens many want to ask their fellow citizens their thoughts on issues of the day, and without meaning anything other than just wanting to know. That’s how I read ice24k’s poll. I do understand that generally such interaction may better be placed in a discussion thread, but let’s say I want to design a flag for our new nation and I post a poll asking our citizens whether they’d prefer the background we blue or red. They may vote red; but maybe I really prefer blue and decide to go with that. Why would such a poll be disallowed; and if allowed, why must I be forced to follow it? I’m not an official, just some citizen offering a design for a flag. Someone suggested that such polls belong in the citizen’s forum, but we have this nifty poll forum so why is it a sin to use that forum for, well, a poll?

Stupid questions, I’m sure, but they’re mine, and I’d be interested in enlightenment.

Thanks!

i think the best way to ensure polling is fair, is for each people to comment on their vote, you shouldn't vote if you can't explain your choice, so post it... that way, polling will be fair, no one can vote 20 times to cheat the poll score.

and a poll is a way to know what people thinks, not what we ARE going to do... unless the poll question specifically says that this will be the next course of action...


just adding my 2 golds per turn

no one can vote 20 times, unless it's a public poll.

Polls must be open for 2 days.

how about at least 4 days? so that more people can participate and a more accurate conclusion can be derived.

I have some questions of an historical nature about polls. For a long time we’ve usually suggested/required that an “abstain” option be made part of every poll. How did this come about? And what’s the function? If I don’t want to vote in a poll – if I want to abstain – I just don’t vote. If I don’t want to vote for a specific reason – perhaps I think the poll is unfair – then I don’t have to vote but I have the option to post why I’m not voting.

I'm not sure how it came about or what it's intended function was. I do see a function for it now. If we are to make decisions where the majority rules then abstain becomes a good tool to diffuse bad (unfair) polls. If we have a two option question then we'll have a majority decision unless there's a tie. Trouble is, what if the quesiton is do we attack the French in 5 turns or 10 turns when in reality the majority don't want to attack at all? By not voting we risk having a majority decision to attack. By requiring an abstain option, those who don't want to attack at all (or who want to attack at a different time) can vote abstain. Now if we include abstain votes in deciding a majority (not plurality) then we have a nice easy means of dealing with the sort of poll described.

The method we tried last game to deal with this sort of situation was the Censor expiriment. We had one official who was responsible for looking at all polls and validating or invalidating them. Not only was that alot of work, it was abused for political reasons. I do not think we should give one perosn the power to over turn polls.

The only other way I can think of would require a minimum number of votes for a poll to be a decision and we've have no luck in the past agreeing on what level of support a poll should require to be binding.

Also, why aren’t all votes public? I do understand why we might not want to make public our votes that directly concern an individual (election & impeachment votes). But why aren’t all other votes public? Even though sometimes we’ve devised some pretty fancy constitutions that help us play at a representative democracy, really the constitutions have always made clear that we’re a direct democracy (Will of the People). We’re all citizen-legislators; why should we hide our beliefs from each other? I’m not making a criticism here; I’m asking for a rationale because I just don’t understand.

Historically, when the democracy games started there was no such a thing as a public poll. The forum just didn't havce them. Then when public polls came along they were seen as a way to hold people accountable. It was suspected that some people were posting in the forums and taking one stand on an issue but then voting the opposite way in the polls.

I've been that major proponent of allowing private polls. Both public and private polls have their pros and cons. Secret ballors allow people to vote without peer pressure on sensitive issues, while public votes do offer accountability. I feel it should be left to the individual posting the poll to decide which type of poll is more appropriate in a given situation.

Last, ice24k’s poll on Vanilla vs. Warlords generated some criticism because it wasn’t a “legal” poll. I’ve read the explanation that in the past some officials have posted “unofficial opinion polls” then tried to use those to justify actions that - had they polled them - would have been disallowed. Hence, I gather, a movement that polls are sacred and must be for official purposes only (am I correct on this?). What I think I’m reading is informational polls (especially from officials) are therefore illegal. What I think I’m reading is that every poll must be official, and the results must be adhered to. This makes sense in cases where it’s relevant.

You seem to have the gist of it. The term official is one we argued over last game. To me, it means something done by an official. To others it meant binding as in the results of the poll had to be followed by the turn player.

I believe I understand the behavior this policy is trying to prevent, and I agree with the aim. However, citizens many want to ask their fellow citizens their thoughts on issues of the day, and without meaning anything other than just wanting to know. That’s how I read ice24k’s poll. I do understand that generally such interaction may better be placed in a discussion thread ... Someone suggested that such polls belong in the citizen’s forum, but we have this nifty poll forum so why is it a sin to use that forum for, well, a poll?

The suggestion to put informational polls into the citizens forum is a good one. I've been calling for all polls ot be official / binding (and to keep informational / opinion things to discussion threads) simply because I'm afraid we'd end up with a mess (and lots to argue about) if we try to write rules / legislation for polls. Ther are many ways to slice and dice the issue. Your example of designing a flag is great. It is something that we should be allowed to poll freely and any citizen designing a flag should be allowed to disregard any poll vote when making a proposed flag. Adopting a flag as official I'd say would require some sort of official / binding poll but the standards for such a poll need not be the same as that for [civ4] game play decision polls.

What we need is an objective way to know when the majority has made a [civ4] game play decision in a fair manner. (I think I had one more criteria but can't think of it now.) We need to find an easy way of separating the kind of polls you're talking about from game play decision polls.

Mods (maybe admin) CAN view private polls
Mods (maybe admin) CAN edit poll numbers.
:D But I trust all of our mods (TF does)

If believe only TF can do it, and he said it's pretty complicated.

If believe only TF can do it, and he said it's pretty complicated.

I recall this as well, but can't recall what thread it was in (SF forum I believe). Only TF has the ability to see who voted in a private poll.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

I have occasionally used information polls to find out whether it's worth the amount of effort required to do something. Take a Constitutional amendment as an example. If we continue the folly of prior DGs which made it difficult to pass an amendment, I want to know up front if the people actually want the amendment or not. Why invest a week or more drafting a proposal, arguing with its detractors, getting it past a recalcitrant judiciary, and polling it, if it's certain to fail anyway because nobody really wants it? Compare that week or more effort to a few minutes to post a poll to see if anyone wants it.

Flip it the other way too. If there is vocal resistance to an idea like an amendment, but only from a few people, it might be useful to show them that the rest of the people want the change. It might be helpful to do this up front, so they'll know it's not an issue worth attempting to block.

idea: label all polls with referance numbers/letters so people can see it as either A.information polls, B.congressional procedings, or C.acts of ministers

like for A, it would state the example:"should flying machinery be used against those without it?" as "IP. (information poll) flying machinery. query to be used against enemies without such."

i think this would help us in determining the importance of the poll, where it should be located, and what it consists of.. plus, it makes it look more profesional :)

idea: label all polls with referance numbers/letters so people can see it as either A.information polls, B.congressional procedings, or C.acts of ministers

like for A, it would state the example:"should flying machinery be used against those without it?" as "IP. (information poll) flying machinery. query to be used against enemies without such."

i think this would help us in determining the importance of the poll, where it should be located, and what it consists of.. plus, it makes it look more profesional :)
However, it does look a bit confusing, especially to new members.

yes i know... maybe we should "dumb" it down but still have a label system.. *example*
INFORMATION POLL: blah blah
CONGRESSIONAL BILL: blah blah
MINISTRY ACT:blah
and so forth.. it would be more efficient to have some sort of identification so that people dont vote on something without thinking about it.. which unfortunately is the habit of alot of americans... oh and thats not an insult.. im an american too ;)

There are some limits on the length of thread titles, practical limits if not physical ones.

After checking an old thread:

TF can view who voted on a private poll. (But it is a massive pain involving checking a database)
Mods cannot view who voted in private polls.
Mods can change the number of votes (even in public polls)

they can CHANGE the votes? now thats crap

they can CHANGE the votes? now thats crap
I trust the mods enough that they won't do that. And on a public poll, I'm not sure that they can delete/add/change which users voted what. So if the numbers don't add up to who voted for what, you'll know.

I have occasionally used information polls to find out whether it's worth the amount of effort required to do something. Take a Constitutional amendment as an example. If we continue the folly of prior DGs which made it difficult to pass an amendment...

Folly? You still donht' get it, do you? :rolleyes:

Tell me DaveShack, why can't you find out what you need to know from a discussion thread?

Yes, I do get it -- you do not. Nothing in the DG should be time-consuming or difficult. The people want simplicity and speed. I use the "start game or work on rules" poll as evidence -- where is your evidence that they want it to be complicated?

A discussion thread does not capture the opinions of those who don't want to comment on it. An opinion poll determines what the often-silent majority wants.

Folly? You still donht' get it, do you? :rolleyes:

Tell me DaveShack, why can't you find out what you need to know from a discussion thread?

So what you want is that in every single discussion thread, every member (I believe that we're close to 100 at the moment) posts: "I agree" or "I don't agree"?

That's more spam than I can handle.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

So what you want is that in every single discussion thread, every member (I believe that we're close to 100 at the moment) posts: "I agree" or "I don't agree"?

That's more spam than I can handle.

No, I don't want that. I want exactly what I've been saying all along: NO baloney informational / opinion polls. I want us to explore our opinions via discussion threads and reserve forum polls for making actual decisions.

Yes, I do get it -- you do not. Nothing in the DG should be time-consuming or difficult. The people want simplicity and speed. I use the "start game or work on rules" poll as evidence -- where is your evidence that they want it to be complicated?

A discussion thread does not capture the opinions of those who don't want to comment on it. An opinion poll determines what the often-silent majority wants.

The silent majority? Who came up with that one, was it Johnson or Nixon? Doesn't matter, they were both jerks. What is the use of determining what the so-called silent majority wants via a poll that is for informational purposes only and can therefore can be summarily ignored? I don't give a rat's arse what you call your polls. Call them opinion polls or informational polls but treat them all as binding and we will eliminate those time consuming and complicated things you're ranting about. By having some polls that are binding and some that are not you add an unnecessary level of time consuming complexity to the democracy game.

You want to post an informational poll about what time zone we are all in, so do it. If I choose to call that a binding poll then so what? Binding is (as you pointed out elsewhere) in this case meaningless so there is no problem.

We both know the problems arise when someone posts an informational or opinion poll about a game play issue, like INFORMATIONAL ONLY: Should we attack the Romans?. I say such a poll should be binding. I say that if a majority of those voting say yes then we should attack the Romans. You are saying that it doesn't matter what the silent majority wants because even if they vote overwhelmingly to attack Rome, it was only an informational poll anyway so we're not going to do it. Where is the democratic principle in that? What has been gained by posting that poll? What time has been saved? What has been made easier?

Tell me again how you get it and I don't.

Edit: Sorry Ravensfire, I would vote against this intiative. We have to accept polls as binding no matter how badly written. This initiative opens the door to the same kind of squabbling we had last game with the censor invalidating polls. I really think we should write of guidelines (and even poll templates) and campaign for and encourage their use but we should not (at this time anyway) make formal rules that result in the invalidation of polls.

If the initial post does not, the single option with the most votes is deemed the winner.
*Cough @ donsig* (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5094872#post5094872)

Should we amend the Constitution to add (insert your pet project)
Y/N/A

We can find out in 3 days whether it is a waste of time to make an amendment, or we can work for a week or a month on it and then find out it was a waste of time.

Unless you'd like this to be a binding ratification in advance of seeing what the amendment says. :lol:

@dutchfire: donsig will say the proposal in this thread has not been voted on.

@donsig: He's not in charge, but I think we'll use the most votes method. :hammer:

@donsig: He's not in charge, but I think we'll use the most votes method. :hammer:

Are you using your modly powers to make decisions we should be making as a group? If you are then you can count me out of this game.

Are you using your modly powers to make decisions we should be making as a group? If you are then you can count me out of this game.

Do you see any tags? ;)

Since there are no tags:

@donsig: He's not in charge, but I think we'll use the most votes method. :hammer:

No, we will not use that method unless it gets a full majority. If there is no majority vote then it will be repolled. :hammer: :hammer2: :hammer:

you know how redundant thats going to make things donsig? how come youve just now started getting active on the issue of majoritys in the polls. is it because the HOF mod didnt get the vote through? come on man.. to make the decision to do something having to require a clear majority? were going to have to spend many extra days if we dont just accept what vote beat out the other. a majority vote is what people claim is needed when they dont have a vote go their way.. oh well.. maybe im just overanalyzing the situation.. but i dont think we should waste the extra effort and days to find a "majority" in any vote.. and i also fi nd the abstain portion of the voting ticket to be completely and utterly useless. all it does is show us false percentages on who voted yes/no.

you know how redundant thats going to make things donsig? how come youve just now started getting active on the issue of majoritys in the polls. is it because the HOF mod didnt get the vote through? come on man.. to make the decision to do something having to require a clear majority? were going to have to spend many extra days if we dont just accept what vote beat out the other. a majority vote is what people claim is needed when they dont have a vote go their way.. oh well.. maybe im just overanalyzing the situation.. but i dont think we should waste the extra effort and days to find a "majority" in any vote.. and i also fi nd the abstain portion of the voting ticket to be completely and utterly useless. all it does is show us false percentages on who voted yes/no.

Well, I've been talking about majority votes for a few weeks now and I've been suggesting ways to play the democracy games for a few years now. :old: Yes, I said years. I've been posting on CivFanatics since the pre- [civ3] days. Yes, that's Civ three not four.

Yes, we will be spending some more days discussing and repolling the HoF Mod issue. But it's not going to delay the start of the game and those who don't want to participate in the discussion or new poll do not have to.

I was actually considering writing up some stuff I learnt during my study when I stumbled upon a great site on the internet that covers that much thas has alreasy been said about polls and also adds some important stuff too. Especially mutually exclusive and exhaustive poll options are key requirements for every poll that wants to be taken serious.

http://knowledge-base.supersurvey.com/response-bias.htm

I'm not against majority votes, but I find the concept of counting abstain votes ridiculous.

definately agreed with dutchfire

What defines a majority in a poll? And how should abstain votes be considered. Allow me to start with the latter.

Abstain votes are votes that have no value to any of the other poll options in a poll. Theoretically you can either include or exclude abstain votes from a poll. Including them would mean dividing the votes equally over the remaining poll options. Let's use the HoF mod poll as an example.
yes: 16 votes [37.21%]
no: 20[46.51%]
abstain 7 votes [16.28%]

Dividing the abstain votes over yes and no votes will result in:
yes: 17.5 votes [45.35%]
no: 23.5[54.65%]


Excluding the abstain votes is another theoretical possibility:
yes: 16 votes [37.21%]
no: 20[46.51%]
abstain 7 votes [16.28%]

Excluding the abstain will result in:
yes: 16 votes [44.44%]
no: 20[55.56%]

You cannot however assign abstain votes to a selection of poll options that doesn't contain all other poll options. If you do that you are tempering the poll result and not taking the voters seriously.
A more important question I personally have though is why the polls have the Abstain poll option. Yes and No are already mutually exclusive and exhaustive, there is no need to poll the "opinionless minds".

Onto majorities. Have they been defined somewhere, I couldn't find a definition of poll majorities. I understand that donsig likes to define it and I myself was keen on them too... once. Suggest you define 60% as a majority. Then every poll needs to have a minimum of 60% on one poll option. Check the current polls and you will see that 60% is unachievable. Also, 60% would perhaps make a nice value for a poll with 2 poll options but not for a poll with any other number of poll options. You would have to define a majority value for polls with N poll options (N = all natural numbers). It really is easier and just as fair to see which poll option received the most votes and just accept that as the outcome.

Don't factor in the abstain votes. Just do another private poll.

Maybe we should discuss what to do in the future when we have this problem next time.

I say just don't offer the Abstain poll option. That keeps us far from any possible different points of view when reading out the poll scores. The poll option with the most votes wins.

Did anyone think about a tied poll - a poll where both (all) poll options have the same amount of votes? I presume someone has and that a quick re-poll is suggested then?

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

Forgive me for challenging this topic a little more but if we do not count abstain votes, why are we interested in knowing the number? To rub it in it :P?! And if you don't see an option you support then you just don't vote (and not complain afterwards too). Using the amount of abstain votes as an indicator is indeed an option but seeing Abstain in a poll might lead people to vote Abstain rather than doing some brainwork and thinking why A is better than B.

Tradition?
As I recall, last game every poll *had to* have an abstain option, but they weren't counted.

You might compare them to the radio-active monkey option in OT. People just like to click, by not giving them the option to abstain, there's a chance they'll just click something randomly.

No, we will not use that method unless it gets a full majority. If there is no majority vote then it will be repolled. :hammer: :hammer2: :hammer:

Except that my position on how to do polling is backed by a poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=203685) and yours is not. :p

Seriously though, show me another citizen who thinks abstain should count. There is a remote possibility that there are some posts I haven't read since the new forum opened. We certainly have a boatload of people who say abstain should not count.

Maybe we should stop arguing, and write up a small initiative, deciding on how abstain votes should be counted, see if it gets passed, and then come back to this.

Seriously though, show me another citizen who thinks abstain should count.

...raises hand Edit: My mistake. I misread it.

I believe that abstain should be kept. Consider the HoF mod poll and Mac players. Since the DG game is Windows based Mac players can't view the save anyway, therefore 'Abstain' is a valid option for them. What about polls on government types? What if I don't like any of the proposals, therefore shouldn't I be allowed to 'Abstain', thereby showing my support for none of the proposals.

What if I don't like any of the options, by not having the 'Abstain' you are saying I can't be a part of the process.

The simple fact is 'Abstain' doesn't cause a problem if it is left as an option. The only time it causes a problem is when someone tries to use it to figure out a close vote. Realize, that even without the 'Abstain', more than likely it's still going to be a close vote.

I'm beginning to wonder if we should include a statement in our polling process that states if the 'Abstain' option gets greater than or equal to x% than the poll is invalid, or nullified due to the people. I'm not entirely sure on the exact nature of my suggestion, but if enough citizens agree its worth looking into I'd be willing to work on it.

Maybe we should stop arguing, and write up a small initiative, deciding on how abstain votes should be counted, see if it gets passed, and then come back to this.

We could just post Ravensfire's initiative. :)

@Methos I didnt really read in detail, but it seems that the issue is counting abstain votes in the majority or not. Removing the abstain vote doesn't seem to have come up here.

ie. Yes 10 votes No 7 votes Abstain 3 votes makes
Yes 50%
No 35%
Abstain 15%

without counting the abstain votes in the final percentages it makes

Yes 58.8%
No 16.6%

Used easier numbers, but let's say the yes % fell under 50 counting abstain votes, it would not fall under 50 if abstain votes weren't counted.

@Methos I didnt really read in detail, but it seems that the issue is counting abstain votes in the majority or not. Removing the abstain vote doesn't seem to have come up here.

:blush: Just looked back at Dave's post and your right, he talks about counting the abstain vote, not removing it. My mistake.

...raises hand

I believe that abstain should be kept. Consider the HoF mod poll and Mac players. Since the DG game is Windows based Mac players can't view the save anyway, therefore 'Abstain' is a valid option for them. What about polls on government types? What if I don't like any of the proposals, therefore shouldn't I be allowed to 'Abstain', thereby showing my support for none of the proposals.

What if I don't like any of the options, by not having the 'Abstain' you are saying I can't be a part of the process.



I agree that abstain should be present in the poll options. The "conflict" here is about whether abstain should be counted when determining a "majority" or the winner of a plurality.


The simple fact is 'Abstain' doesn't cause a problem if it is left as an option. The only time it causes a problem is when someone tries to use it to figure out a close vote. Realize, that even without the 'Abstain', more than likely it's still going to be a close vote.

I'm beginning to wonder if we should include a statement in our polling process that states if the 'Abstain' option gets greater than or equal to x% than the poll is invalid, or nullified due to the people. I'm not entirely sure on the exact nature of my suggestion, but if enough citizens agree its worth looking into I'd be willing to work on it.

We have tried in the past to have a measurement of the "quality" of the vote. Past DG's have used the "census" as that measurement. Generally speaking, the census would be the average number of people voting in the most recent election, and we would require some percentage of the census having voted on an issue to make the poll valid. It's usually been reserved for rule changes, with ordinary polls having no minimum vote requirement.

Often those in favor of a census argue that a vote of 2-1, or other suitable low number, should not be considered valid. Maybe an objective measurement of "enough" votes is worth discussion.

Edit: x-posted -- started writing it then took a 1 hour break to attend a class. :)

I'm beginning to wonder if we should include a statement in our polling process that states if the 'Abstain' option gets greater than or equal to x% than the poll is invalid, or nullified due to the people. I'm not entirely sure on the exact nature of my suggestion, but if enough citizens agree its worth looking into I'd be willing to work on it.

Interesting train of thoughts, I for one didn't look at the Abstain votes from the other side. If we can agree on a value that is equal for all polls then Abstain votes can be used as a prerequisite for a valid poll. Such an equal value can be a set number or a set fraction of a number.

In the first case that would be: > 10 Abstain votes renders a poll invalid;
In the latter case that would be: >1/xth of the total amount of votes or 1/xth of the total amount of poll options renders a poll invalid.

Seriously though, show me another citizen who thinks abstain should count. There is a remote possibility that there are some posts I haven't read since the new forum opened. We certainly have a boatload of people who say abstain should not count.

Point given. But we still need SOMETHING to allow people who do want their vote to be counted and don't agree with any of the given options (think back to your hypothetical poll about declaring war when never isn't an option). We can keep abstain and not count those votes but include and option like this:

THIS POLL SUCKS. I'M NOT ABSTAINING BECAUSE I THINK THIS ISSUE IS IMPORTANT BUT I DO NOT LIKE ANY OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED. PLEASE COUNT MY VOTE.

How's that guys? Can we use something like this?

So then let's pass an initiative like Ravensfire suggested.

If x% of votes are abstain, poll shall be declared invalid.

If x% of votes are abstain, poll shall be declared invalid.

Actually, that was my idea.

It is probably useful to consider different types of polls. Some cover all the bases:

Attack France this turn
Do NOT attack France this turn

Here abstain makes little sense. Even if we throw out the poll, we will still enact one of the poll choices when the next turn comes.

Another poll:

Attack France this turn
Attack England this turn
Attack Spain this turn

This offers a very reasonable meaning for abstain: if abstain wins, attack no one. Abstain would not be necessary if the poll added a "none of the above" option. I suspect most of the appeal of abstain comes from poorly formed polls, either by accident or intention. Perhaps every poll should have "forget this poll" as a choice. If that wins, the poll never happened.

An alternative could be a metapoll. If a poll doesn't IYHO offer valid alternatives, start another poll: "Shall poll #27 be cancelled?". Do the rules as they currently stand allow this form of poll?

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

Another poll:
Attack France this turn
Attack England this turn
Attack Spain this turn

Polls may only concern one option, so IMO this should be polled in two polls:

Poll 1:
Attack this turn? (Yes/No)

Poll 2: If Poll 1=Yes, who to attack? (France/Spain/England)

Can I point everyone to my proposal too, I covered the variety of polls in it.

Can I point everyone to my proposal too, I covered the variety of polls in it.

Sure, it would be good for those newcomers and those wanting to find out the current state of the game :goodjob:

Where is it?

For the cases where the poll is unfair because critical options are not provided, why rely on enough voters protesting to tip the vote? Let's have a mechanism where someone invalidates the poll.

As someone new to DG, I've been wondering similar things myself. Are all these machinations the actual attraction here? Is the emphasis on Democracy rather than Game? My personal inclination would be to appoint some reasonable person as PollMeister. This person would take requests from the citizens and turn them into polls. His job would be to ensure

each poll is legal within whatever rules we have
each poll offers a full range of choices (like including a "none of the above" if pertinent)
no two current polls are asking overlapping questions thus raising the question of which has priority over the other

The PollMeister would not be concerned with the wisdom of the topics being polled, just with the logical consistency of the polls in general.

As someone new to DG, I've been wondering similar things myself. Are all these machinations the actual attraction here? Is the emphasis on Democracy rather than Game? My personal inclination would be to appoint some reasonable person as PollMeister. This person would take requests from the citizens and turn them into polls. His job would be to ensure
each poll is legal within whatever rules we have
each poll offers a full range of choices (like including a "none of the above" if pertinent)
no two current polls are asking overlapping questions thus raising the question of which has priority over the other
The PollMeister would not be concerned with the wisdom of the topics being polled, just with the logical consistency of the polls in general.

We had one last game, he was called the Censor.
The problem is finding a reasonable person who's willing to do the job and avoiding him being/becoming corrupt.

@ ravenfires original proposal

Polls must contain in the initial post a summary of the question and the reason for the question.

Is a link to the discussion thread enough? A summary might be quite large, and subjective.

And maybe add something along these lines:
The poll options must be inclusive, using an Other Option to make the poll inclusive is legal.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

Disregard the "all critical options" part, it wasn't really the point. The point was that if given a choice between requiring a majority including abstain or having some way of invalidating a poll so voters don't have to vote abstain in protest, I'd rather have polls be invalidated.

The judiciary reviewing polls would meet what I'm looking for, if they do it before the poll closes or goes into effect. An individual would be better for speed, but is subject to misuse.

As someone new to DG, I've been wondering similar things myself. Are all these machinations the actual attraction here? Is the emphasis on Democracy rather than Game?

My opinion is that a few people here get more enjoyment out of challenging rules or bending the rules to their will than they get out of civ. A few others would like to focus on the civ, but take up the task of defending the citizens against the 1st set of people in order to get past the rules and on to playing civ. A third group, bigger than the first two, are very into the democracy but not to the point they're demo crazy They are equally interested in the game. The biggest group just want to play the game and may even be somewhat bothered by the existence of the first three groups.

I'm not in the 1st group BTW.

The judiciary reviewing polls would meet what I'm looking for, if they do it before the poll closes or goes into effect. An individual would be better for speed, but is subject to misuse.

We could also extend the Coup Concept to polls (and call them challenge polls?): any individual could call to invalidate a poll, a 60% vote needed in order to pass. The results of the original poll wouldn't take effect until the results of the challenge poll were in.

Ravensfire, pretty good work on your proposal. I agree with keeping any mention of "abstain" out of it for the moment. BTW, I think Hyronymus is right-on with his analysis of the meaning and function of abstain.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

The challenge poll doesn't work when it's really urgent that we don't do what the poll calls for. Go back to one of the original examples:

Who will we declare war on the beginning of this play session
France
Spain
Germany

What if the majority don't want to declare war at all? Suppose the poll ends 15 minutes before the play session, and the instructions are "Declare war according to results of poll". Without someone having the ability to invalidate the poll result, the DP would be forced to declare on someone, knowing the people don't want it.

I will predict the answer from some people might be "tough luck, don't vote for the idiot who posted the poll, next term". But the game might be irretrievably lost before the next election.

Or the DP can ignore the instruction and not declare on anyone.

Or the play session can be cancelled, and we waste another 3 days waiting for the next one.

I'd rather have someone shoot down the poll as soon as it appears.

The challenge poll doesn't work when it's really urgent that we don't do what the poll calls for. Go back to one of the original examples:

Who will we declare war on the beginning of this play session
France
Spain
Germany

What if the majority don't want to declare war at all? Suppose the poll ends 15 minutes before the play session, and the instructions are "Declare war according to results of poll". Without someone having the ability to invalidate the poll result, the DP would be forced to declare on someone, knowing the people don't want it.


Isn't there a minimum duration for a poll? My thought was that as soon as a bogus poll opened, someone who opposed it could open a second poll to cancel the first. If the second gets a majority (it's yes or no, period), then the first poll has no official standing.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

There is some danger to this scenario - unrest in the meta-game.

You post a poll.
I don't like it, so I post a similar poll, yet worded slightly differently. You poll is now superceded.
You repost your poll, with your wording, because you don't like my poll. My poll is now superceded.

And on, and on, and on.


Yes, there is always the danger that concurrent polls are in conflict as to intent - one poll decides to war on France while at the same time another poll decides to ally with France.

The second poll I had in mind was simply: "Cancel the first poll - yes or no". If this second poll fails, then the first poll takes effect with whatever it decided. If the second poll succeeds, then the first is null and void. And they are timed to end simultaneously, so you know right then which way to go.

Still clearer than the poll to declare war against A, B or C:

A poll to decide declare war against all civs clicking with the left hand or

clicking with the right hand.

What about if Judiciary was given the power to declare invalid said polls?

(because they apriori exclude possible valid decisions, like declare war to D

or not to declare war at all).

Best regards,

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

For the cases where the poll is unfair because critical options are not provided, why rely on enough voters protesting to tip the vote? Let's have a mechanism where someone invalidates the poll.

Sure, DaveShack, we'll just make you Censor again and let you decide what's good and bad for all of us. :rolleyes:

As Ravensfire pointed out, we either need a large list of criteria for judging polls - and the larger the list the greater the chances of a decent poll being thrown out on a technicality - or we need someone (a Censor type official or the judiciary or a poll commission or something) to judge each and every poll. Both options politicize the issue.

You've been crying that you want a simple method for the DG. I've given you one:


All completed forum polls are equally binding.
Only options getting a majority of the votes cast (no matter what options are available) are to be considered group decisions.
All polls must have a catch all option that is counted when determining whether a majority has decided on one option.


Since any other option politicizes the process it makes sense to build the invalidation into the poll itself and let citizens decide the issue on a case by case basis. The catch all option could even be:

I object to this poll. Choosing this option will be counted towards determining a majority. Please post your reasons for objecting so we can have better polls in the future.

My opinions:

We don't need to make every decision with a majority. "Most votes wins" is sufficient in my opinion.

We do need a way to invalidate a poll if it's a bad poll, no matter how few people think it's a bad poll. That power must be placed in the hands of someone we trust. There is always the "false or misleading" language in the forum rules to fall back on, if it comes to that. I really don't want to go there unless forced -- I'd rather the people choose someone to police it based on DG rules instead of forum rules.

Let's assign a committee for poll evaluation :D.

Clearly a poll can be fair or unfair; that is connected to the question, not to

the answer.

To declare war on France, yes or not - is fair;

To declare war on France or Germany - is unfair.

That's obvious. Since it is a problem about a (possible future) rule and not

about a decision, it looks a good task for Judicature.

Best regards,

My opinions:

We don't need to make every decision with a majority. "Most votes wins" is sufficient in my opinion.

We do need a way to invalidate a poll if it's a bad poll, no matter how few people think it's a bad poll. That power must be placed in the hands of someone we trust. There is always the "false or misleading" language in the forum rules to fall back on, if it comes to that. I really don't want to go there unless forced -- I'd rather the people choose someone to police it based on DG rules instead of forum rules.

Why don't you try being consistent in your stances DaveShack? In the past you've advocated interpreting things the way the majority want them interpreted yet when presented with a system that does just that you balk - and worse yet talk about resorting to a vague forum rule so you can invoke your moderator powers if necessary (and of course YOU will be the judge, jury and executioner when deciding what is necessary).

We tried using an official last game to invalidate polls and it was a total disaster. Setting aside for now the questions of whether we can all agree on someone we can trust or whether anyone by him or her self is competent enough to make such judgements, don't you think the job is a bit much for one person? Last game the censor did not even make a post in every poll but fell back on the reprehensible tactic of declaring all polls valid unless otherwise stated!

I'm not suggesting that we need a committee to do this as that would be an even greater disaster.

If we build the invalidation method into the poll then we all get a say in whether a poll is fair or not. Using an other option and counting those towards figuring the majority, would put the invalidation process into the hands of the citizens. We could still use abstain and not count those towards the majority calculation. It's simple, it's objective and it's straight forward. I really don't see your problem with the proposal.

It does have to be coupled with the idea of tossing out pluraity (or minority) decisions. But that ties in with the fix for our elected official woes. Elected officials are bound by majority decisions, they are not bound by pluraity decisions. By sticking with majority decisons we have a clearcut and fair criteria for knowing when officials must follow a poll and when they can use their own judgement in creating game play instructions. By allowing officials to make decisions in the absence of majority decisions we make offices more appealing. By allowing anyone to post any kind of binding poll (and making all completed forum polls binding) we safeguard citizens from officials who want to manipulate polls so they can make their own decisions. Leaders are still free to lead and post polls the old fashioned way. Officials may not be bound to follow plurality decisons but if they want to win re-election they will certainly have to seriously consider the wishes of these sizeable blocks of voters.

If you look at the whole system I'm proposing you'll see that it has checks and balances and addresses many of the complaints we've heard from various corners in past democracy games. I am really mystified (and quite frustrated) that the proposal is given such short shrift, especially in the name of doing things the old (and unsuccessful) way.

I'm equally mystified that someone can advocate allowing officials to totally ignore a clear decision by the citizens.

Do you want a peace treaty?
Yes - 8
No - 1
Abstain - 8

Should the official be allowed to play on, at war, because 8 people don't care? This gives 1 person, possibly that very same official, the right to decide what the other 16 people do.

This should be seen as a majority decision, 8-1 in favor of peace. The 8 people who abstained had their chance to influence things and chose not to take it.

The other alternative, not playing at all because we don't have a decision, is even worse. Demogames die from lack of activity.

I've never said you can't try to convince enough people that the way you want to do it is better. It's going to take about 25 converts if the poll numbers stay the way they have been.

I'm also wondering if we need to have a specific amount of time that a discussion thread has to be posted prior to creating its poll. We just had a poll posted where the discussion thread has only been open for 15.5 hours, not even a full day. The game doesn't even start for almost two weeks so I don't understand why everyone is rushing.

The problem I see is people where argue to correctness on the poll if not enough time is allowed for discussion, of which I totally agree on this case.

I mean no offense Shattered, but you jumped the gun on your poll.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

One day to discuss before the votes looks good; and to vote only one day

is needed.

Best regards,

After reading through this thread, it strikes me that there (at least) two ways we could go to simplify this polling mess.

If we were feeling brave, we could just toss out the idea of a binding poll altogether. Polls relating to game decisions would all be considered advisory in nature. An independent group (anyone up for reforming the Polling Standards Commission?) could police the polls, of course, to provide officials with information on which polls they think are fairest. Of course, woe to the official who goes against a majority vote come the next election cycle or coup. That is, of course, the nature of some elected officials in real-world democratic systems - bodies like the Senate and Electoral College in the United States were meant to moderate the feared excess of mob rule by being removed from democracy.

A second, perhaps more palatable, option may be to simply define the age-old abstain option as a vote against the poll itself. At its close, it a poll's abstain option has the most votes of all the possible options, the poll's results are invalid. Alternatively, we could set a threshold - if, for example, 25% of a poll's total respondents vote abstain, the poll is invalid.

This is obviously a touchy subject and since I was not involved with the last
demo game I'm not sure how this will all play out once we get going in the game, so take anything I say with a grain of salt.

It seems to me that if we elect certain officers to make decisions involving the game, we should give them a bit of latitude regarding the running of our civ. Coming from that point of view, I have to agree with Donsig that if we are going to be basing policy off of polls we should require an absolute majority for it to become, in effect, law. It seems that there are a lot of people who believe that an abstain vote means the person just didn't care. People can cast abstain votes for any number of reasons, the least of which would be because they don't care. If that were the case they wouldn't be tkaing the time to vote in the poll.

I don't think having a poll option of "unfair poll" is a viable way of handling potentially bad polls. That's just going to delay the game if it triggers - we need a way to identify and replace such polls faster.

I also don't think requiring a majority on every decision is possible. We will NOT be able to stick with a 2 session/week schedule, unless all polls are single-day polls. And to forestall an arguement, until I see a concrete proposal, fully detailed, for continuous play, I don't care about it. It does make sense to recommend their use, and that I will support. Require them? No.

-- Ravenfire

Invalidating a poll (by whatever means we decide to use) does not need to delay the game. Nothing needs to delay the game. All we need is a mechanism in place for making decisons. If we all agree that an invalid and / or non-majority poll is a non-group decision and allow the appropriate official to make decisions when no group decision is made then we have a nice simple, clear-cut way to know what's going on. This system allows any citizen (office holder or no) to post any poll and have it be binding if a majority agree on one of the options. We also let anyone post instructions based on such a poll. If there is no majority group decision via a completed forum poll then an official can make the decision. This system gives citizens a check on officials and also allows officials some leeway to make choices when the group does not.

Yes, DaveShack in an 8/1/8 vote I would allow the official to legally choose the option getting only one vote. If you interpret abstain to mean I don't care then those 8 abstainers should not care which option is actually used, right? In reality, an official (looking to maintain electability) will rarely ignore sizeable blocks of voters.

No system is going to be fool proof or perfect. Let's go for a system that at least is clear-cut and simple to implement and has checks and balances.

I think we've reached a point in the discussion where we have two different proposals. The first is to use a person or committee to validate or invalidate polls. The second is to use some mechanism with the poll itself (such as a none of the above option) to invalidate a poll. It is conceivable to allow both methods. So, how do we decide this? We could do a multi-choice poll such as this:

How should we invalidate forum polls?


Use a person or committe to invalidate polls
Use an internal poll mechanism such as a none of the above option
Abstain


This is a multi-choice poll - vote for all options you would like to see implemented.

This is a public poll.

This poll will be open for 7 days.

This is a general poll which will be followed up by discussion and polling to determine how to implement any option receiving a majority of votes.

Link to discussion thread(s).

Notes on the poll:
I don't care if it's public or private.
I don't care if abstain is included or not. In a multi choice poll the percentages are calculated on number of voters casting votes so abstain doesn't mess up the poll result percentages.
I think there is no rush to make this decision so a week long poll is ok. We don't need the answer to this poll to play the game so there is no game delay involved.
I am not including an interpretation clause because I am totally against those. My standard interpretation is that any forum poll option getting more than 50% of the vote is binding.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

Why make it multi-choice? And your own mock poll has an abstain, but you say you don't care about it? :lol:

See this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=209071) for an example of another way an unfair poll can be invalidated.

How should we invalidate forum polls?

Use a person or committe to invalidate polls
Use an internal poll mechanism such as a none of the above option
Abstain


Should we invalidate polls at all? There should be a "don't invalidate polls" option IMO.

Should we invalidate polls at all? There should be a "don't invalidate polls" option IMO.

We could include that. I didn't because my impression is that we all see the need to invalidate bad polls. Of course what would we do if a majority vote to not invalidate polls AND to invalidate via some method?

Why make it multi-choice? And your own mock poll has an abstain, but you say you don't care about it? :lol:

What's so funny? I don't care about it because it's multi-choice where it means nothing. In a multi-choice poll a person can vote for every single option so a person can abstain and, well, not abstain by making an additional choice as well. :crazyeye: The point is that the poll percentages are calculated based on the number of people voting so abstain really means nothing in a multi-choice poll - which is what the majority want it to mean. So I don't care if it's there or not. If this was a yes / no poll I would not include the abstain option.

The reason for making it multi-choice is the fact that we can have more than one system available to invalidate a poll. The idea here is not to chose the ONE AND ONLY method for invalidating polls but to see which methods are or are not acceptable so we can hone in on a consensus.

See this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=209071) for an example of another way an unfair poll can be invalidated.

Don't even go there DaveShack. If I post this poll I will not include moderators stepping in and mucking about with our polls. The only reason I didn't raise Holy Heck in that new poll is that I decided to ignore the moderator tags and look upon the new poll as simply a new poll posted by a citizen. There really was no reason for Chieftess to use her moderator powers to change that poll. Yes, I know only mods can close polls like that but the new poll could have been posted by anyone who could have then posted in the needed things thread to close the faulty poll. (Disclaimer - I'm not sure what initiatives we have already passed concerning elections so I'm not really sure if any citizen can repost an election poll. Perhaps this will be the first case our judiciary looks at.) Also, aren't I technically breaking forum rules by publicly discussing a moderator action? If so, you or CT or any other mod can feel free to ban me since I couldn't do a flipping thing about it anyway, now could I?

I guess the "don't invalidate polls" option would essentially be saying generally invalidate it with a newer poll, within the current rules... ~shrug~

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

We could include that. I didn't because my impression is that we all see the need to invalidate bad polls. Of course what would we do if a majority vote to not invalidate polls AND to invalidate via some method?
We've got enough time, why not just split it in two polls?

Do we want to invalidate polls? Yes/No/(abstain)

And if Yes gets chosen, make a follow-up poll with options on how to invalidate polls.

A hybrid system for invalidation probably isn't all that hard to create, and with the appropriate checks and balances in place, it could work out nicely - though probably not very elegantly.

The first option is the presence of a mechanism within the poll - for instance, if we define an abstention (or some other option) as a vote against the validity of the poll, should a majority vote for that option, the poll is invalidated upon its expiration.

The other option for invalidation I would give to the judiciary, seeing as it already is a body that exists for examining whether or not certain actions are against the law. Two out of three justices agreeing on the question of validity would constitute a full ruling - in other words, no need for unanimous ruling.

There would probably be two methods for initiating a review of the poll:

1. At the request of a citizen, in which case justices must rule on the polls validity within, for example, 24 hours, of the request - in that time period, if only one justice posts a ruling, or if only two justices post post opposing rulings (thereby creating a tie) the appeal process described below starts immediately.

2. On of the justices, on his/her own motivation, declares a poll to be invalid, in which case both of the other justices must agree or disagree with that ruling within 24 hours. If no other justice issues a ruling, or if only one other justice posts a ruling that declares the poll valid, as above, an appeal immediately begin.

To prevent abuse of the second method for invalidation, an appeals process would have to be created. To make the process of appealing an invalidation/valdiation ruling easy, the poll would be laid out in a precise way as defined by an initiative. The poll would be a copy-and-paste deal, taking pre-agreed text right out of the initiative, simply saying something like "Do you believe that the following poll should be declared invalid?" with a link to the poll in question and prior judicial rulings on validity, and only yes/no options - any additional/changed text in the first post would automatically invalidate the appeals poll, necessary to prevent questions about the validity of the appeal.

This obviously is a first draft more than anything else, and probably needs to be cleaned up and streamlined. However, at least right now, it seems like a good way to consider validity, with checks against the potential for abuse.

How should we invalidate forum polls?


Use a person or committe to invalidate polls
Use an internal poll mechanism such as a none of the above option
None of the above
Abstain


This is a multi-choice poll - vote for all options you would like to see implemented.

This is a public poll.

This poll will be open for 5 days.

This is a general poll which will be followed up by discussion and polling to determine how to implement any option receiving a majority of votes.

Link to discussion thread(s).

Notes on the revised poll:
Lowered the time open to 5 days. Still see no rush here.
Added a none of the above option for those who think we should not invalidate polls at all.
I have no idea what we'd do if all the options get a majority. :crazyeye:

I was part of DGI when the Censor went invalidating crazy, so I cringe at the thought of a Censor. If anything, I'd suggest that our three judicial officials are the ones who validate/invalidate polls, and they must agree unanimously (sp?) with each other to do it.

Edit: What is everyones opinions on making the three judicial officials combined be our Censor?

I don't see any need for the poll to be open that long. Most DG polls are decided (in the sense of the percentages being stabilized) before the 1st 48 hours have passed.

That doesn't mean I think the duration needs to be changed. I'll only be in a hurry if we get a poll which should be invalid before this issue is decided.

Rather than a multiple choice poll that might cause some confusion, would it be easier, donsig, if we simply added the option 'Some combination of the of the above options' in the number three spot of the poll (along with the possibility of an additional stipulation for a runoff to ensure a majority should that be necessary)?

Rather than a multiple choice poll that might cause some confusion, would it be easier, donsig, if we simply added the option 'Some combination of the of the above options' in the number three spot of the poll (along with the possibility of an additional stipulation for a runoff to ensure a majority should that be necessary)?

Well Octavian X, if we do a multi-choice poll then we'll know which of the two methods are acceptable to citizens. The idea is we pursue any option that gets more than 50% of the vote. So anyone wanting some combination of the two would just vote for both.

By adding a third option we do what we've always done, water the choices to the point where we will not have a majority decision. The way to avoid plurality decisons is to design polls that discourage them.

I'll try to post the poll this evening. With a five day period it will close on Tuesday night.

Donsig, I suggest adding to your poll that if you vote for one of the options not to vote for Abstain. Some of us (I mean them :mischief: ) voted for players and Abstain in the DP poll. I'm not for certain exactly why I, I mean we, ... they did that.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

Is only TF able to view IP adresses?

Donsig, I suggest adding to your poll that if you vote for one of the options not to vote for Abstain. Some of us (I mean them :mischief: ) voted for players and Abstain in the DP poll. I'm not for certain exactly why I, I mean we, ... they did that.

But it doesn't matter if they do that, does it? The idea in the DP poll is to see if a candidate is acceptable to a certain percentage of citizens. Voting for all candidates and abstain has no effect on the results (especially since abstian doesn't count anyway :rolleyes: ). Same applies here.

The trouble with this poll though is the inclusion of a don't invalidate polls option. Anyone could vote for that as well as one or both of the invalidation options. What the heck would we do if all three options get a majority?