Citizen's Initiative - The Polling Act of 4000 BC

As polling is at the core of our decision-making process, some standards and requirements for polls must exist.

Polls with in-game or meta-game actionable items must follow the requirements. Polls that violate these standards and requirements will be deemed invalid and cannot be used in any decision making process, or used as justification for any action based on that poll. This determination will be made by the Judiciary.

Polls should follow the guidelines, but are not required to do so. The guidelines are there to help everyone make informed decisions.

Requirements
All poll options and the initial post will be stated in a clear and neutral manner.
Polls must explain how the results will be interpreted in the initial post. If the initial post does not, the single option with the most votes is deemed the winner. The interpretation may not change after 2 hours from the posting of the poll.
Polls must contain in the initial post a summary of the question and the reason for the question.
Polls will cover one and only one question.
Polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days.
Polls that cover an actionable item in the Civ 4 game or the DG meta-game are initiatives, and thus binding.
Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by The Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618).Guidelines
Poll options that are not immediately obvious should be explained in the initial post.
Polls should contain a link to all relevant discussions in the initial post.
Polls should be open for 4 days to allow everyone to vote.
When making complicated decisions, polls should start at the general level (Do A or B), then get detailed (Do A in manner X or Do A in manner Y). Conditional polls are valid (If we decide to do A, do it in manner X or Y), and may be posted at the same time as the initial poll.
Polls should be preceded by discussion, with a proposed poll posted in that discussion.---------------
Ravensfire, I know you summarised this all into this perfectly readible text but I noticed it still hasn't reached the poll status - worse not even the official iniative status. I have no intention whatsoever to create a stir by "stealing" your hard labour but I need this initiave to link to for an initiave I'm writing now. The discussion stranded in the abstain epic (which now has it's own topic fortunately) and I think this may boast the original issue again: fair polling.

While I agree there is a need for a polling act I have some reservations about making such a sweeping initiative poll so soon. First of all, the guidelines are great but I do not see the point of placing them into an initiative. We pass initiatives and post polls so we can require something to be done.

Second, the first requirement is not enforceable because it is not objective. What is clear to one citizen in not always clear to another. Look at how DaveShack and I view things. The second requirement I am totally against. We need a uniform method of interpreting polls.

I really think we should finish the abstain / none of the above / how do we invalidate bad polls discussion before proceeding here.

I agree with donsig. The first product of this discussion should be a set options, with the end result a poll similar to how we chose which government we would proceed with (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206929).

We have, essentially, one choice to make - the abstention question really changes depending on how we go about invalidating polls. These are the options that have been considered to this point (so far as I know):

- via an elected official/committee that judges each poll on whether it followed the established guidelines - similar to the position of the Censor in the last DG
- via a mandatory option in the poll that invalidates its results should that option reach a certain threshold of approval
- or any other ideas

Let's hash out these options a little bit further (or come up with some new ones), then we'll post a poll to decide which one we want to pursue further. After that, we can write a comprehensive polling initiative for final passage.

Second, the first requirement is not enforceable because it is not objective. What is clear to one citizen in not always clear to another. Look at how DaveShack and I view things.


Subjective requirements are OK, as long as the person / people deciding if they have been met are trustworthy. Sure, any individual might disagree with the official(s) in charge of determining validity. If there is a case that the validating authority is unfair, we have adequate recourse. If someone still refuses to accept the validation ruling, there is a mechanism to handle that too.


The second requirement I am totally against. We need a uniform method of interpreting polls.

Sure, it's called most votes wins.


I really think we should finish the abstain / none of the above / how do we invalidate bad polls discussion before proceeding here.
There are at least two good options for invalidating polls. The OP says the Judiciary would have that responsibility. It's easy to identify an individual who by definition must be fair.

We have, essentially, one choice to make - the abstention question really changes depending on how we go about invalidating polls. These are the options that have been considered to this point (so far as I know):

- via an elected official/committee that judges each poll on whether it followed the established guidelines - similar to the position of the Censor in the last DG
- via a mandatory option in the poll that invalidates its results should that option reach a certain threshold of approval
- or any other ideas


I'm very against the "mandatory bad poll" option, which has at least these fatal flaws:

A large number of the citizens might not know the poll is unfair, where an official would.
If a threshold is used, it lets a very small number of people block progress by voting "invalid poll" instead of "no", when it becomes apparent there is no other way to prevent the poll from passing.
If a large number of people vote and then the poll is found to be unfair, it might not be possible any more to meet the criteria to trigger the bad poll provision, because too few voters remain.
A patently unfair poll could be invalidated immediately by an official, where it might be necessary to let the poll run its course before a percentage trigger invalidates it.
Including "bad poll" as an option is begging people to start thinking of polls as inherently bad. If we want to encourage positive thought and improve morale, we need to foster an environment where it's assumed that we're good unless someone blows the whistle.I could go on, but this is a good start. :cool:

What I learnt in my psychology study is that making unobjective polls is unachievable. As donsig said himself: what may be clear to one person may still be fuzzy to someone else. But there is no way of preventing that when you make a poll. Even with the best intentions you are bound to formulate in a fuzzy way for someone in your intended audience. Can we please accept this truth and carry on. Really, there is no ultimate guide on formulating polls.

I know the abstain issue is still unsolved Octavian X but I don't see why we cannot formulate a preliminary polling act yet. Aren't these initiaves aimed at fitting them in with other decisions? And isn't that why this initiative didn't reach poll status yet?

I wish we could stop debating the obvious and except that abstain votes don't count towards any options and that majority wins. Again, it's common practise in statistics land to interpret polls this way. Why do we even want to create special cases :sad: ?!

I agree with Hyronymus proposal.

And about valid/invalid polls I go for the first option of OctavaianX post,

that is, an elected comitee to look at; and I think this "elected comitee" must

be the Judiciary itself.

Not to forget that the validity/invalidity (or fairness/unfairness) of the poll is in

itself, not in the votes, so Judiciary must act as fast as possible when the

poll is posted.

Best regards,

I agree with Hyronymus proposal.
And about valid/invalid polls I go for the first option of OctavaianX post,
that is, an elected comitee to look at; and I think this "elected comitee" must
be the Judiciary itself.


I cannot recall I read that in Octavian X's post but I think that opens the way for a completely different approach of revoking initiatives. Instead of starting a topic, citizens (or citizen groups) ask the Judiciary to look at an initiative (poll) they feel is unfair. This can be done in private or public but the Judiciary will post that they are investigating an initiave (poll). This post is followed by a post containing the (as swift as possible) ruling.

I know the abstain issue is still unsolved...

Well, if the current results of the abstain poll hold up then abstain will not count. I see no reason now for including abstain in polls. It only serves to muck up the poll result recentages.

I agree with donsig. The first product of this discussion should be a set options, with the end result a poll similar to how we chose which government we would proceed with (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206929).

I dunno. That poll worked only because a real majority settled on one choice. It could have been a nightmare had it been a plurality decision. I think we're better off discussing and polling the individual parts of this separately - then it can be bundled and packed as a whole for display purposes. We currently have a good poll up about abstain. As long as a real majority settles that question we can move on with polling acts that include that result. I think we should try to keep it simple and stick to two option polls for now.

We have, essentially, one choice to make - the abstention question really changes depending on how we go about invalidating polls.

Well, there are two big choices left. The first you nailed: how do we invalidate polls. The second is: do we make plurality decisons binding.

These are the options that have been considered to this point (so far as I know):
- via an elected official/committee that judges each poll on whether it followed the established guidelines - similar to the position of the Censor in the last DG
- via a mandatory option in the poll that invalidates its results should that option reach a certain threshold of approval
- or any other ideas

The first two ptions are not mutually exclusive so there is no reason we can't allow both mechanisms.

Subjective requirements are OK, as long as the person / people deciding if they have been met are trustworthy. Sure, any individual might disagree with the official(s) in charge of determining validity. If there is a case that the validating authority is unfair, we have adequate recourse. If someone still refuses to accept the validation ruling, there is a mechanism to handle that too.

It's not just a matter of being trustworthy. It's also a matter of being competent. Election by the masses guarantees neither trustworthyness nor competence. If it did we wouldn't need a polling act because our officials would always post fair polls and follow the will of the people. What recourse do we have if validating authority is unfair? We had a whole game of that crap last time and you were one of the ones being unfair despite the fact that you are both trustworthy and competent. We usually have recourse to the judiciary but if they are the committee invalidating polls then we have to go to the judiciary to rectify problems with the judiciary. Anyone familiar with the cases we've had of using the judiciary to validate their own election or appointment know how I feel about that sort of thing. What mechanism is there available someone who refuses to accept the validation ruling? There are two choices: 1) live with a bad ruling or 2) keep plugging away at it till the poor decision is revealed as such. I went through this last game with private polling. There is no mechanism DaveShack and you know it. Stop misleading the players of this game.

Sure, it's called most votes wins.

That's debateable and we need another discussion about whether plurality decisions shoudl be binding (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5141454#post5141454).

There are at least two good options for invalidating polls. The OP says the Judiciary would have that responsibility. It's easy to identify an individual who by definition must be fair.

People are not fair by definition DaveShack. You're talking crazy now. But I guess that's to be expected now that you are part of the Brotherhood of Moderators. By definition all CivFanatics moderators are fair, impartial and perfect. I forgot. :rolleyes:

I'm very against the "mandatory bad poll" option, which has at least these fatal flaws ... I could go on, but this is a good start. :cool:

So is this where I should list all the problems with having a trustworthy person or committee going around invalidating polls? Why don't you do a little exercise for me DaveSahck. Go get a piece of paper and a pen or pencil. Fold the paper in half and write invalidate by trustworty person on one half and invalidate by internal poll votes on the other half. Divide these halves in half so you have a benefits and problems column for each method. Now list the various problems and benefits of each method in the proper column. Then post it. If you end up with one column that is blank let us know. If not then why not take a lesson from the private versus public polls debate. Both private and public polls have benefits and drawbacks. The great thing is, we don't have to make a global choice of one over the other. We can allow both. We could set up a mechanism whereby the judiciary (or someother body) invalidates polls and another mechanism whereby voters can invalidate a poll through voting in the poll. Do you see a major problem with doing this?

Gah, stop it! All of you.

Yes, there is no error-free solution for invalidating initiatives. Either a mandatory invalidate poll option or a committee are flawable. But if we have a Judiciary why not give them the power to investigate the validity of initiatives? If we get suspicious of the Judiciary we can always overthrow them, can't we?

I dunno. That poll worked only because a real majority settled on one choice. It could have been a nightmare had it been a plurality decision.

Nope! That poll was setup to require a majority decision. If there hadn't been a majority decision, a run-off would have been conducted. That decision was important enough that a majority decision was required.

-- Ravensfire

What recourse do we have if validating authority is unfair? We had a whole game of that crap last time and you were one of the ones being unfair despite the fact that you are both trustworthy and competent.

There are a range of options to deal with the validating authority, including judicial action, an initiative to change the authority, and if necessary a ban for the authority. I agree that some actions of some validating authorities last game were unfair. I don't think that I took any official actions which were unfair. ;) I did make some arguments for a position which turned out to be unfounded -- that's a mistake, it's not being unfair. :p


What mechanism is there available someone who refuses to accept the validation ruling? There are two choices: 1) live with a bad ruling or 2) keep plugging away at it till the poor decision is revealed as such. I went through this last game with private polling. There is no mechanism DaveShack and you know it. Stop misleading the players of this game.

Someone pushes that button with the exclamation point inside a triangle. Someone else acts, or not, depending on circumstances. Like it or not, there are higher rules here. If it's a behaviour issue, those rules apply. If it's merely a disagreement, they don't apply as long as the disagreement remains civil.

Last game, you finally made a compelling argument on private polling, after a few months of unsuccessful attempts based on less compelling arguments. I agreed with your position immediately, once pointed to evidence for that position. :)

The obvious answer is to make a better argument instead of repeating the same one. :joke:


People are not fair by definition DaveShack. You're talking crazy now. But I guess that's to be expected now that you are part of the Brotherhood of Moderators. By definition all CivFanatics moderators are fair, impartial and perfect. I forgot. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to do anything with this statement, but I can't say what other mods might do.


The great thing is, we don't have to make a global choice of one over the other. We can allow both. We could set up a mechanism whereby the judiciary (or someother body) invalidates polls and another mechanism whereby voters can invalidate a poll through voting in the poll. Do you see a major problem with doing this?

So far I don't see any feasible way to reliably invalidate every unfair poll through voting in the poll. See my previous post for a list of reasons this would not work. If there are conditions where the poll would slip through, as I believe there are, then using the voting in the poll method adds complexity (additional required poll option) but doesn't solve the problem. Complexity is bad for demogames, see last game and Civ3 DG6 for examples.

What about the even simpler option of posting "I object" in the poll thread? The originator can either post a new poll or let the poll continue. If the poll continues, its results are put on hold pending review.

Also we should discuss how to handle abuses of an objection system, either in the form of a poll option or via posting an objection. Either one is subject to the danger that someone who disagrees with the result of the poll could object to a valid and fair poll just to derail its result.

Frankly, I'm annoyed at the endless creation of Nation name and City name polls and the arguments that polls are not created validly. On top of that, we have discussed the status of Abstain, including Abstain and None of the above in polls and how to invalidate polls. Even pluarilty decisions as binding have been discussed but we have still not established a "template" for polls. That's why I dig up this topic and urge everyone to re-consider this initiative.

Let's stop wasting time by running from poll to poll and let's stop arguing that polls are unfair.

As I'm heading out in a few minutes I haven't had time to update the initiative in the first post with the outcome of polls concerning polls that have been created since February 25th. Feel free to point me to them though and I'll do my best to include them in the initiative this (GMT +1) evening.

*BUMP*

Please read through the posts before the *BUMP* mark and then comment.

My suggestions:

Move "Polls should contain a link to all relevant discussion" from the guidelines to the requirements.

Add "A poll must state clearly when it closes, if at all." to the requirements.

Move "Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by The Constitution." from the requirements down to the guidelines.

Several of these issues have been resolved as individual initiatives.

Plurality results are binding unless the poll states otherwise.
Votes for abstain (and other non-answers) do not count towards a plurality vote.

I disagree with moving links to all discussions to the requirements. Not all discussions which seem to touch on a subject are relevant, but it would be far too easy to claim invalidation based on a missing link to such a discussion. It's also a lot of work to track down all discussions which mention a topic and decide if they are relevant.

The poll itself states when it closes, most of the time. Duplicating that information in the OP is wasteful.

Edit: Requirements should be reserved for things which identify polls which are probably invalid. Guidelines should be for things which might reveal an invalid poll, if reasonable examination of the poll shows it is crafted to be unfair or misleading.

Why not dig up all the work done on polling standards from Civ3 Demogames, these are all written crystal clear and will do the job. I can see no evolution in the democracy part of the demogame, but less cursing and swearing and a better game engine. Just bring them up and save us the hassle.

Provo - they aren't as crystal clear as you think.

You're also welcome to dig them up and post them.

-- Ravensfire

My suggestions:

Move "Polls should contain a link to all relevant discussion" from the guidelines to the requirements.

Add "A poll must state clearly when it closes, if at all." to the requirements.

Move "Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by The Constitution." from the requirements down to the guidelines.
Consider it added but about the moving:
Edit: Requirements should be reserved for things which identify polls which are probably invalid. Guidelines should be for things which might reveal an invalid poll, if reasonable examination of the poll shows it is crafted to be unfair or misleading.
I think that's an excellent division to make, DaveShack!


Citizen's Initiative - Polling Act [draft 3, amended July 9th 2007]


Why is a polling act needed?
Polls form the core of the Demogames' decision-making process. To ensure fair polling requirements for polls must be adapted by the Officials, Designated Players and Citizens. Said requirements give the Yasutan Supreme Court a powerful tool to evaluate polls and declare them valid or invalid.


Poll requirements
Poll requirements are poll properties that enable Officials, Designated Players and Citizens to identify an invalid poll. If one or more of the following poll requirements are omitted the poll is invalid.
The initial post must be stated in a clear and neutral manner, giving a summary of the reason for the poll
The poll question and poll options must be stated in a clear and neutral manner
Polls must explain how the results will be interpreted in the initial post. If the initial post does not explain this, the single option with the most votes is deemed the winner. The interpretation may not change after 2 hours from the posting of the poll
Polls cover one and only one question
Polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days
Polls that cover an actionable item in the Civ 4 game or the Demogame meta-game are initiatives, and thus binding
Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by our Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618)Invalid polls, whether votes have been cast in them or not, cannot be used in any decision making process, or used as justification for any action based on that poll. The validity of polls will be reviewed by the Yasutan Supreme Court, as our Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618) proscribes.


Poll guidelines
To further help the understanding of polls the following guidelines are suggested to the poll maker. Not following the guidelines does not cause a poll to be invalid.

Poll options that are not immediately obvious should be explained in the initial post
Polls should contain a link to all relevant discussions in the initial post
When making complicated decisions, polls should start at the general level (Do A or B), then get detailed (Do A in manner X or Do A in manner Y). Conditional polls are valid (If we decide to do A, do it in manner X or Y), and may be posted at the same time as the initial poll
Polls should be preceded by discussion, with a proposed poll posted in that discussion

Plurality votes and Abstain
The issue on plurality votes has been succesfully tried in the [/URL][URL="http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=211395&highlight=plurality"]Binding Plurality Poll Act (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=211395). If Abstain votes should count towards the poll result has been succesfully tried in The Status of Abstain (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208972).

---------------
Changes in draft 3:
Rewrote the entire Act and added a section on plurality votes and abstain.
---------------

Why not dig up all the work done on polling standards from Civ3 Demogames, these are all written crystal clear and will do the job. I can see no evolution in the democracy part of the demogame, but less cursing and swearing and a better game engine. Just bring them up and save us the hassle.
Be my guest :).

That's a good start.

I would like us to allow salvage of an otherwise good poll which a minority argues is unclear. In particular, "clear and neutral" is very subjective, and it is obvious from the events of the past few days that it is quite possible to see objections to a poll where most of the people know what the poll means, but a few find a technicality in it.

How about:

Poll requirements are poll properties that enable Officials, Designated Players and Citizens to identify an invalid poll. If one or more of the following poll requirements are omitted the poll may be found to be invalid.

I think you have a good point there. It ties in with mentioning the Yasutan Supreme Court later in the act.

I like it

One thing:
giving a summary of the reason for the poll

sounds pretty useless to me in most cases, say you have a poll about whether to settle a city or not, then the reason for the poll obviously is to determine whether the citizenry wants to settle a city or not.

Citizen's Initiative - Polling Act [draft 3, amended July 9th 2007]


first of all :goodjob:


Why is a polling act needed?
Polls form the core of the Demogames' decision-making process. To ensure fair polling requirements for polls must be adapted by the Officials, Designated Players and Citizens. Said requirements give the Yasutan Supreme Court a powerful tool to evaluate polls and declare them valid or invalid.

I would even consolidate the Poll Invalidation Act into this...


Poll requirements
Poll requirements are poll properties that enable Officials, Designated Players and Citizens to identify an invalid poll. If one or more of the following poll requirements are omitted the poll is invalid.
The initial post must be stated in a clear and neutral manner, giving a summary of the reason for the poll
The poll question and poll options must be stated in a clear and neutral manner
Polls must explain how the results will be interpreted in the initial post. If the initial post does not explain this, the single option with the most votes is deemed the winner. The interpretation may not change after 2 hours from the posting of the poll
Polls cover one and only one question
Polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days
Polls that cover an actionable item in the Civ 4 game or the Demogame meta-game are initiatives, and thus binding
Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by our Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618)
I would even go so far as to say: The OP may not be edited 2 hours after the posting of the poll - for one simple reason: in case of doubt this can be clearly seen from the "last edited" date, whether only a Typo was edited or the actual interpretation cannot...


Invalid polls, whether votes have been cast in them or not, cannot be used in any decision making process, or used as justification for any action based on that poll. The validity of polls will be reviewed by the Yasutan Supreme Court, as our Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618) proscribes.

Actually it is the Poll Invalidation Act not the Constitution ;)


Poll guidelines
To further help the understanding of polls the following guidelines are suggested to the poll maker. Not following the guidelines does not cause a poll to be invalid.

Poll options that are not immediately obvious should be explained in the initial post
Polls should contain a link to all relevant discussions in the initial post
When making complicated decisions, polls should start at the general level (Do A or B), then get detailed (Do A in manner X or Do A in manner Y). Conditional polls are valid (If we decide to do A, do it in manner X or Y), and may be posted at the same time as the initial poll
Polls should be preceded by discussion, with a proposed poll posted in that discussion
:agree:


Plurality votes and Abstain
The issue on plurality votes has been succesfully tried in the Binding Plurality Poll Act (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=211395&highlight=plurality). If Abstain votes should count towards the poll result has been succesfully tried in The Status of Abstain (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208972).


How about just stating the results? If not otherwise stated Plurality wins and Abstain is not counted...


---------------
Changes in draft 3:
Rewrote the entire Act and added a section on plurality votes and abstain.
---------------


Be my guest :).
:goodjob:



Poll requirements are poll properties that enable Officials, Designated Players and Citizens to identify an invalid poll. If one or more of the following poll requirements are omitted the poll may be found to be invalid.

I don't like that. This can be understood as if only polls that do not meet the poll requirements can be ruled invalid. And I can easily produce an unfair poll that does meet all of the listed requirements but that would definitely be regarded invalid...
All of the above requirements are of a technical nature, and easily verifiable. But I feel there are also polls that are invalid because of content. E.g. the poll question


"When should we disband the available full health Keshik?"
a) at the start of the turnset
b) at the end of the turnset

We had quite a lot of discussion about the fate of the Keshik in question and I feel we should now decide on when to disband it.

poll open 2 days, private, single choice


easily meets all of the requirements but I somehow feel it would be challenged in court :rolleyes:

I like it

One thing:


sounds pretty useless to me in most cases, say you have a poll about whether to settle a city or not, then the reason for the poll obviously is to determine whether the citizenry wants to settle a city or not.

Actually it is pretty useful - since the motivation may be "we have had lengthy discussions about this - now lets decide already" or "we just started to build a settler and I think this is a good location - vote on it"
Both are valid, but for the one voting it might make a difference whether other input was sought or not...

Citizen's Initiative - Polling Act [draft 4, amended July 9th 2007]


Why is a polling act needed?
Polls form the core of the Demogames' decision-making process. To ensure fair polling requirements for polls must be adapted by the Officials, Designated Players and Citizens. Said requirements and the Poll Invalidation Act (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=214451) give the Yasutan Supreme Court a box of powertools to evaluate polls and declare them valid or invalid.


Poll requirements
Poll requirements are poll properties that enable Officials, Designated Players and Citizens to identify an invalid poll. If one or more of the following poll requirements are omitted the poll is invalid.
The initial post must be stated in a clear and neutral manner, giving, when applicable, a summary of the related discussion related to the poll
The poll question and poll options must be stated in a clear and neutral manner
Polls must explain how the results will be interpreted in the initial post. If the initial post does not explain this, the single option with the most votes is deemed the winner. The interpretation may not change after 2 hours from the posting of the poll
Polls cover one and only one question
Polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days
Polls that cover an actionable item in the Civ 4 game or the Demogame meta-game are initiatives, and thus binding
Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by our Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618)Invalid polls, whether votes have been cast in them or not, cannot be used in any decision making process, or used as justification for any action based on that poll. The validity of polls will be reviewed by the Yasutan Supreme Court, as the Poll Invalidation Act (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=214451) proscribes.


Poll guidelines
To further help the understanding of polls the following guidelines are suggested to the poll maker. Not following the guidelines does not cause a poll to be invalid.

Poll options that are not immediately obvious should be explained in the initial post
Polls should contain a link to all relevant discussions in the initial post
When making complicated decisions, polls should start at the general level (Do A or B), then get detailed (Do A in manner X or Do A in manner Y). Conditional polls are valid (If we decide to do A, do it in manner X or Y), and may be posted at the same time as the initial poll
Polls should be preceded by discussion, with a proposed poll posted in that discussion
Plurality votes and Abstain
Any single choice poll which does not state an interpretation criteria, and is not by rule subject to a specific criteria (see our Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618)) shall be decided by designating the option receiving the most votes as binding.

Abstain votes do not count towards the poll result.

---------------
Changes in draft 4:
- mentioned the Poll Invalidation Act as another tool at the Yasutan Supremen Court's disposal when investigating a poll
- changed the first Poll requirement to stress that summaries are only needed when a related discussion has been ongoing
- redirected the poll invalidation text to to the Poll Invalidation Act instead of the Constitution
- summarised the result of the Binding Plurality Poll Act (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=211395&highlight=plurality) and the The Status of Abstain (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208972).
---------------

If one or more of the following poll requirements are omitted the poll is invalid.
No, I still disagree very strongly with this. I know several people who would use "is invalid" in this clause to say that it forces the judiciary to mark polls invalid. It would be used by those people against polls they don't like or started by people they don't like, and it would be used against polls which are good, needed, and nearly perfect.

How about:

omiting one or more of the following poll requirements may be reason to invalidate a poll

I think ignoring valid options presented in the topic discussion thread, invalidates the poll. This way, we avoid tilted polls only arguing one side of the table.

Another way to make polls neutral, would be to have a separate preprepared section to be added in the poll thread as presentation for an option. This way, the original poller could not omit an option, or rephrase the option to the detriment of the other option. This would also force the person presenting an option to be very short and succinct. An example of a prepared quote could be.

"Attack spearman in forest with Maceman in four turns, if odds are 65 % or better"

Then the original poller would have to include this option if that option would contrast his own option in the same poll. This would put an end to the repolling practices we see now. The reason we see repolls are for two reasons.

1. The original poller tilts the poll by omitting key evidence and other options
2. only the last poll is valid, so we can in principle repoll as many as we want.

To avoid repolling, both sides in a case should be treated fairly in the very same poll, which simply goes right on the option itself (to be worded by the proponent) or the wording "selling" the option (to be prepared in a "quote").
If two players mean more or less the same thing, the original poller should respect these views and either pick the most clear message of the two, or compound these two into a clear and good option. Good polling is not about technical methods, but about respecting both sides in the poll itself.

1. The original poller tilts the poll by omitting key evidence and other options

If we start using Mock polls again, this wouldn't be that much of a problem.

How about:

omiting one or more of the following poll requirements may be reason to invalidate a poll
If DaveShack (and everyone else) can live with this we can always implement mock polls if no marked progress in the quality of polls results from this polling act.

Please define a "mock poll", I am curious on what it means, in this universe.

I agree with the "may be a reason to invalidate a poll" I would hate to see the judiciary forced into a decision by a small inconsequential error, or a nit-picked interpretation of one of the requirements.

@Mock Poll: It's posting the exact OP, interpretation, poll options etc. of a poll in the relevant discussion thread about a day before posting the actual poll. That way, people can spot problems in the poll earlier, preventing all sorts of problems.

I see the point, a sort of "Trial Poll" in order to weed out weaknesses, a draft so to speak. I think we should make that compulsory.

Here's an example mock poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5269149&highlight=mock+poll#post5269149).

I see the point, a sort of "Trial Poll" in order to weed out weaknesses, a draft so to speak. I think we should make that compulsory.

This proposal has it as a guideline:

"Polls should be preceded by discussion, with a proposed poll posted in that discussion"

I think that's fine as there are standard procedure polls that don't need a mock poll.

agreed mock polls are nice, but might be overkill for basic issues like founding a city where there are already a number of successful polls which can be copied.

It might be an overkill, but since I happen to believe in "overkill", better safe than sorry. Putting out fires in aftermath is not that fun.

I'm against delaying game sessions over issues which should be straightforward. The idea of a mock poll is to allow comment on the poll options. Waiting for those comments makes the poll start later, which pushes the play session later.

There should be deadlines both for mock polls (1 day before the real poll is made) and the real poll (within 3-4 days before the turnchat).

I'm also opposed to deadlines, if you mean fixed time frames. Deadlines invite legal challenges, for instance someone can post a mock poll at 10pm and then their next computer time is 9pm the next night -- do we slap them around for posting the poll 1 hour early due to RL? No, we should not. Do we make the game wait an extra day for their 10pm slot the next night? No, we should not.

A play session every 4 days is optimum, IMO. That leaves 2 days for discussions and 2 days for polls. Any longer between play sessions and the natives get restless and start posting more polls or arguing about things which don't (or shouldn't) have any bearing on the game.

I think there should be a small deadline after the posting of a mock poll, just to allow someone else to read it and to stop people posting the mock poll and then the real one a few minutes later without any time to object

I agree to Joe here, we should have less coups and more due process from now on.

Instead of creating a deadline you can also request the Supreme Court to bless a mock poll within 24H. If the Supreme Court fails to do so the mock poll is automatically considered valid. This doesn't mean people can't object to the validity of the actual poll, naturally.

If the mock poll is a guideline, then there is no problem with having a guideline for how long it should be left open to comment before posting the actual poll.

It should also be obvious that there are polls which don't need a mock poll, which is why I'd like mock polls to be a guideline and not a requirement.

From the pollster's point of view, there would be a choice. Post a mock poll and accept the inherent delay, or meet the poll's timing needs (like finishing before a play session starts) at the risk of it possibly being invalidated.

Instead of creating a deadline you can also request the Supreme Court to bless a mock poll within 24H. If the Supreme Court fails to do so the mock poll is automatically considered valid. This doesn't mean people can't object to the validity of the actual poll, naturally.

This is plain wrong. This is what they do in Serbia when they register companies. If the government has not responded in five days, the company is automatically registered.

This would make mock polls quite political, with some having closer "acquaintances" accepting more errors by some, and tilting the process.

It should be 24 hours per mock poll, but the mock poll could be incomplete, having the main options from the outset, whereas other options could be added in the mock poll in the formed of "quoted" options that could be added.
In this way, people would have a fair chance to add other options, rather than being pushovers. Otherwise, we will see people contesting the validity of polls. Time is a much more fair and neutral due process mechanism than people.

It is the options in the poll that is the key here, not the mock poll formalities itself. As the poll is a binding contract between the people it better be fair and include all options presented. From what I read, it is quite easy to hijack polls with these arbitrary guidelines from what I see. I would personally like 24 hours to see that all options are included in a poll to do it properly.

It is what they do in The Netherlands too: if the government doesn't reply to construction requests within 13 weeks you can consider the request granted. It's not plain wrong, it forces the authority to be on top of active topics.

Yet, we could have 12 H for adding more options, then the Supreme Court could approve it and include new options coming in the first 12 H, that could also work.

Currently to invalid a poll just 1 of 3 judges has to act within 72 hours.
What you ask for is that at least 2 of 3 judges act within 24 hours - While this may some times be possible I guarantee that a) not all judges read all threads every day and that b) RL does intervene sometimes even for 2 of 3 civfanatics at a time ;) So if passing this deadline would imply that the real poll could not be invalidated you'd make it much easier for bad polls to slip past the even now not very tight checks...

A poll should still be invalidated, even with the deadline.
The deadline is just to make sure all options are included, and presented properly.

In that case:
I agree with DaveShack here:
make a Mock poll a guideline (knowing that even following that can result in an invalid poll, but it reduces the risk).

At the same time leave the court out of it (at least routinely) because you create more delay - If you post a mock poll people should have at least 24 hours to read it and propose changes, if you want a court approval you'd need another 24 hours after that during which the mock poll cannot change, because judges wouldn't know on which version they should vote. Of course if the discussion on the mock poll results in a dispute and someone feels this poll would be invalid and others feel it would not, one could always ask the court for a review before the poll is posted - but that should not be time limited...

Yes, control the main poll, the Mock poll we control internally.

OK, on to mock polls then.

Provolution, you said something about digging up old poll rules from Civ3 demogames. Did they happen to include mock polls?

I haven't checked them, since the archive formats are messed up.
We should ask the real poll experts, Donsig,Ravensfire and others, the people that passionately work on legal stuff and technicalities, if they can find some.

Not following the guidelines does not cause a poll to be invalid.


I don't like this too much - and would simply delete it. It was necessary when the requirements were strict and omitting one would invalidate a poll. But with that out of the way, delete it. These guidelines do not guarantee a valid poll, but following them decreases the likelyhood of invalidation...

These guidelines do not guarantee a valid poll, but following them decreases the likelyhood of invalidation...

This has the tone I'm looking for.

Invalidating polls should be limited to extreme cases. The problem we had last game which led to the discussion of a standard in this game was being too cavalier about invalidating polls, and far too strict with requirements on polls. Last game we had polls invalidated because they were private, opened too early by an hour or two, didn't include an abstain option, and other procedural reasons. This game we had sense enough not to invalidate certain polls on thin grounds, which is an improvement.

Let's do this right, and leave the door open to invalidating polls with extreme problems while leaving remedies less than invalidation for polls which have minor problems.

DS, I saw that Ori was a bit stringent on the latest poll, but we are facing a legal fatigue if legalities are overdone. I think some flexibility should be in place.

Aren't we saying the same thing? Make it possible to take care of bad polls while being flexible enough that few of them (or none) are automatically bad.

Maybe it's time to split this act in two pieces and change the way in which we deal with it.

I suggest a split into a Mock Poll Act and a Polling Act. We first need to deal with the Mock Poll Act then. The guidelines from the Polling Act should find a place in the Mock Poll Act then. After we agreed on the Mock Poll Act we can discuss the Polling Act, which contains the current requirements ánd a link to the Polling Act.

Honestly - you shouldn't split it up. The entire concept here is polling, and how to make it better. One specific technique is the mock poll suggestion.

General comments:
You cannot and will not ever create a perfect description of what is a valid poll. Okay, you could, but you'd never get anyone to play that game. Slight someone, and they will turn the game into a nightmare.

Let's look at the tools available now.

There's the sledgehammer of an Initiative to invalidate a poll. Drastic, massive and very, very easy to see the escalation. "Oh yeah? Well I'll post a poll to invalidate YOUR poll invalidating my original poll!" The joy of this - it cannot be stopped or prevented, just avoided by citizens and discouraged by peer pressure.

There's the screwdriver of peer pressure - citizens commenting on polls and (most helpfully!) proposed polls. Feedback does work - and if you word it nicely, it works better. When polling a passionate topic, it can be difficult to keep things neutral. Comment on the poll if you think it's unfair and especially comment if you think it's fair. Hold up good examples!

Finally - the scalpel of the Judicial Invalidation. A Justice can invalidate a poll, but that can be appealed. In both cases, a great deal is left up to the Judiciary about the process. The process currently defined has been used since Term 2, and seems fair. Is that the best way to handle it?

There's a lot of vagueness in that act, isn't there? Oddly, nobody ever asked why. The answer is twofold. First - You really don't want to have some massive list of standards, because there WILL be exceptions, and you WILL run into trouble, arguments and wrangling over matters. That's ugly, and is to be avoided.

Some people here have been dealing with this (and things like this) for years both here and outside of CFC. Think about work, and how you present ideas to others. I'll bet most of you know exactly how to slant things, which means you also know how to do it straight.

I'm looking at this matter as two separate questions. First, are the current tools enough? Do they strike a good balance between game pace and fairness? Personally, I think they do.

So the second question, is are there adequate means of knowing what is and isn't a valid poll? Again, any answer to this must hit the balance between game pace and fairness. Complicating things are different people have different ideas of valid/invalid. What's fair to me, might be utter partisanship to you.

No, I'm not tossing out any answers or ideas, just thoughts and comments to those that are. Previous happenings on this topic have pushed me away from it, except for comments like this.

-- Ravensfire

I've been tortured with every imaginable aspect of poll validity during my Psychology study. There are two outstanding principles of a fair poll though, if you fail those you simply cannot get the poll fair.
All poll options must be exhaustive (all relevant poll options are available)
All poll options must be mutually exclusive (every poll option covers a unique choice)

It would be curious to see what degrees people here. I see some hardcore academicians, programmers, high school kids, librarians, business people, military people and just ordinary workers and so on. These backgrounds impact analytical perceptions, things are done differently and so on. Compound that with national character, political correctness, melodramatic urges, lazyness, zealotry and in general jointly apathy and fervor in the same bag, and we are bound to see come conflicts from time to time.

It would be curious to see what degrees people here. I see some hardcore academicians, programmers, high school kids, librarians, business people, military people and just ordinary workers and so on. These backgrounds impact analytical perceptions, things are done differently and so on. Compound that with national character, political correctness, melodramatic urges, lazyness, zealotry and in general jointly apathy and fervor in the same bag, and we are bound to see come conflicts from time to time.
Your point being?

My point being is that we will probably not see a unified and harmonic culture in this demogame, but it can be stimulating in weird and unexpected ways.
We are beyond the point where this could have been a game run by convention.

Do you agree with this citizen's initiative concerning polling written by Hyronymus?

Options:
Yes
No
Abstain

This poll will be public and open for 4 (four) days.

Citizen's Initiative - Polling Act


Why is a polling act needed?
Polls form the core of the Demogames' decision-making process. To ensure fair polling requirements for polls must be adapted by the Officials, Designated Players and Citizens. Said requirements and the Poll Invalidation Act give the Yasutan Supreme Court a box of powertools to evaluate polls and declare them valid or invalid.


Poll requirements
Poll requirements are poll properties that enable Officials, Designated Players and Citizens to identify an invalid poll. If one or more of the following poll requirements are omitted the poll is invalid.
The initial post must be stated in a clear and neutral manner, giving, when applicable, a summary of the related discussion related to the poll
The poll question and poll options must be stated in a clear and neutral manner
Polls must explain how the results will be interpreted in the initial post. If the initial post does not explain this, the single option with the most votes is deemed the winner. The interpretation may not change after 2 hours from the posting of the poll
Polls cover one and only one question
Polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days
Polls that cover an actionable item in the Civ 4 game or the Demogame meta-game are initiatives, and thus binding
Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by our Constitution
Invalid polls, whether votes have been cast in them or not, cannot be used in any decision making process, or used as justification for any action based on that poll. The validity of polls will be reviewed by the Yasutan Supreme Court, as the Poll Invalidation Act proscribes.


Poll guidelines
To further help the understanding of polls the following guidelines are suggested to the poll maker. Not following the guidelines does not cause a poll to be invalid.

Poll options that are not immediately obvious should be explained in the initial post
Polls should contain a link to all relevant discussions in the initial post
When making complicated decisions, polls should start at the general level (Do A or B), then get detailed (Do A in manner X or Do A in manner Y). Conditional polls are valid (If we decide to do A, do it in manner X or Y), and may be posted at the same time as the initial poll
Polls should be preceded by discussion, with a proposed poll posted in that discussion
Plurality votes and Abstain
Any single choice poll which does not state an interpretation criteria, and is not by rule subject to a specific criteria (see our Constitution) shall be decided by designating the option receiving the most votes as binding.

Abstain votes do not count towards the poll result.

I still don't like that it states that not following the guidelines does not make a poll invalid - this effectively says that no poll can be invalidated since some of those especially regarding complicated decisions can make a poll extremely unfair and still this initiative says that it is a valid poll...

So I would vote no

How about changing it to "might make it invalid"?

I would possibly propose standards for those seeking to invalidate the polls, not the polls themselves. When there is assymmetric invalidation of polls, there is a problem, as we saw last term.

I would also add requirements to the poll per official (number of turns to research tech) and so on. I would also like to limit the use of citizen polls to overrule minor tactical decisions by leaders.

I would possibly propose standards for those seeking to invalidate the polls, not the polls themselves. When there is assymmetric invalidation of polls, there is a problem, as we saw last term.
would you give some example of what you think would be best? this term definitely suffered from a lack of guidelines in either direction.


I would also add requirements to the poll per official (number of turns to research tech) and so on. I would also like to limit the use of citizen polls to overrule minor tactical decisions by leaders.

You'd have to change the constitution for that - since it explicitly states that citizens make the final decision on everything and that no law can disallow a citizen initiative.

How about changing it to "might make it invalid"?

I think that one should simply delete this sentence - it was in there because the stricter rules were phrased at mandating an invalidation if not followed and the guidelines were supposed to be weaker. Since the former is gone this sentence is no longer necessary.

I think the people should rather coup the official, if they disagree with minor tactical moves, this pertains to all officials. We cannot have micromanaging leaders a common-place occurency. If that is the case, we do not need "leaders".

I think for the war-aspect, we should only poll which cities should be taken, and at what pace. If the leader fails to obtain those goals, or does so at too high cost, the official should be couped. This way, we avoid ill-intended and/or harmful "citizen input", to undermine an officials role.

I would also like to limit the use of citizen polls to overrule minor tactical decisions by leaders.

When officials deliberately ignore citizen input and give vague and misleading non-answers to simple questions, the citizens need some way to force accountability on the leaders.

I have written this several times, and y'all seem to ignore it. There is a simple answer for the "guidelines problem":

Not following the guidelines does not automatically cause a poll to be invalid.

When officials deliberately ignore citizen input and give vague and misleading non-answers to simple questions, the citizens need some way to force accountability on the leaders.

You got the Coup option for that.

I have written this several times, and y'all seem to ignore it. There is a simple answer for the "guidelines problem":

Not following the guidelines does not automatically cause a poll to be invalid.

The automatic invalidation only applies to those who are not aligned to the invalidator, that is the simple and realist political answer to that.

I have written this several times, and y'all seem to ignore it. There is a simple answer for the "guidelines problem":

Not following the guidelines does not automatically cause a poll to be invalid.

That certainly sounds good to me, but I'll wait to see what our experts say.

That certainly sounds good to me, but I'll wait to see what our experts say.

Experts in selective automatic invalidation you mean ?

Experts in selective automatic invalidation you mean ?

Experts as in Hyronymus who has studied polling to a certain extent, and who wrote this initiative in the first place. I wouldn't want to alter this initiative before hearing his opinion.

You got the Coup option for that.

When our people are in imminent danger for the current play session, a Coup takes too long. We were lucky that several citizens saw a way to reduce the amount of bloodshed, and that one of them thought it was important enough to ask for a vote on the matter.

The automatic invalidation only applies to those who are not aligned to the invalidator, that is the simple and realist political answer to that.
Experts in selective automatic invalidation you mean ?

Sorry, this didn't make sense. Are you trying to make a point of some kind?

May I bring it to your attention that the point of this thread isn't to discuss the recent past again, but to come up with a solution for the future. I'd appreciate it if you could all stop bringing up the past in a non-constructive way.

When our people are in imminent danger for the current play session, a Coup takes too long. We were lucky that several citizens saw a way to reduce the amount of bloodshed, and that one of them thought it was important enough to ask for a vote on the matter.

No bloodshed was reduced, and we wasted a keshik, that is still a fact. The same elephant ended up in Cumae and killed a spearman there. The Longbowman would not have passed around, that is the answer to that.

This was absolutely not a lucky move, but a demonstration of power and general discontent. This rash decision of a premature poll had cost us many man-hours, and did not save us one single unit. It was also important enough for the same citizen to argue hard for a river penalty, so important that the German Longbowman is the main legacy of the entire Judiciary for this term, and the entire basis for the Judiciary this term. And for the polls, you need the right name and the right agenda to get them through the Judge Advocates radar. Roy Bean had a more impartial court, I would say.

Sorry, this didn't make sense. Are you trying to make a point of some kind?

Yes.

May I bring it to your attention that the point of this thread isn't to discuss the recent past again, but to come up with a solution for the future. I'd appreciate it if you could all stop bringing up the past in a non-constructive way.

If we are to fix any supposed past problems with invalidation, we must know what those supposed problems are. I would like to either see evidence on "automatic selective invalidation", or the matter dropped.

The samples are quite political, and still contested, and with the present power structure, I guess the system will continue to be quite arbitrary.

The polling policing of the Judge Advocate this term has been nothing but appalling, as there has been a continuous abuse of double standards in criticizing polls and invalidating them. In fact, I am more or less over the German Longbowman Coup, but not the subsequent handling of it.

For invalidation, I would rather look onto what the officials should place in the poll as minimum information (what type of vote wins the poll majority vs. plurality, duration, what happens if there is tie or less than 50 % for one option). There should also be rules for a mock poll lasting a two days on long term decisions (further turnchats) and one day for near term decisions.
The more rules, the less arbitrary treatment.

For Science, the minimum would be how many turns to research with the present technology and percentage research on science slider as well as secondary research goal. We should only poll research paths mentioned in a technology discussion. Each tc should have a technology discussion.

For Warlord, the minimum would be which war objectives are to be taken in a turnchat as well as the destinies for conquered cities. For contesting particular tactical moves, we rather use a vote of confidence/Coup. Otherwise it does not make sense to be a "military leader". Wars should not be detail-managed by committee, that is mob rule. Most people does not follow these debates, and I am certain that there is an interest in giving some basic power back to the warlord. If the warlord fails in a war, then coup him/her, that is much more fair than clipping away the needed authority to hold office.

There should be developed strict guidelines for Foreign Affairs as well, as well as for Governors.

There should be guidelines for polling locations of wonder-builds, and use of Great People.

All these guidelines should be crystal clear, fair and transparent, and polled.

We also need to agree on where and when the polls are allowed to be posted, and how long discussions should last.

The demand for documentation in polls should be equal to all, not selective.

The samples are quite political, and still contested, and with the present power structure, I guess the system will continue to be quite arbitrary.

The polling policing of the Judge Advocate this term has been nothing but appalling, as there has been a continuous abuse of double standards in criticizing polls and invalidating them. In fact, I am more or less over the German Longbowman Coup, but not the subsequent handling of it.

For invalidation, I would rather look onto what the officials should place in the poll as minimum information (what type of vote wins the poll majority vs. plurality, duration, what happens if there is tie or less than 50 % for one option). There should also be rules for a mock poll lasting a two days on long term decisions (further turnchats) and one day for near term decisions.
The more rules, the less arbitrary treatment.

For Science, the minimum would be how many turns to research with the present technology and percentage research on science slider as well as secondary research goal. We should only poll research paths mentioned in a technology discussion. Each tc should have a technology discussion.

For Warlord, the minimum would be which war objectives are to be taken in a turnchat as well as the destinies for conquered cities. For contesting particular tactical moves, we rather use a vote of confidence/Coup. Otherwise it does not make sense to be a "military leader". Wars should not be detail-managed by committee, that is mob rule. Most people does not follow these debates, and I am certain that there is an interest in giving some basic power back to the warlord. If the warlord fails in a war, then coup him/her, that is much more fair than clipping away the needed authority to hold office.

There should be developed strict guidelines for Foreign Affairs as well, as well as for Governors.

There should be guidelines for polling locations of wonder-builds, and use of Great People.

All these guidelines should be crystal clear, fair and transparent, and polled.

We also need to agree on where and when the polls are allowed to be posted, and how long discussions should last.

The demand for documentation in polls should be equal to all, not selective.

Having these kind of guidelines would be great, why not start up seperate discussion threads on these issues?

Much better, thanks.

The current constitution does not allow any limits on what a citizen may poll as an initiative. That is extremely clear, and I don't foresee enough people voting to change it.

Taking the science area as an easy example, it is true that all science polls should list in the OP the number of turns to research, as well as the positive and negative effects of the tech and perhaps what techs it leads to. Links don't really cut it for me. However when the poll is honest (but lacking this information) I'd rather use peer pressure than invalidation.

Invalidation should be reserved for cases where:

The poll is trying to trick the people. Example would be the Liberalism poll leaving off a tech, possibly coupled with statements from the pollster showing it's not the pollster's choice and from the public saying it's a popular opinion.
The people have so little information or such wrong information that it is impossible to make an informed choice.
Other similar circumstances, determined subjectively by the invalidating authority.

I think we can use a constitutional amendment or two, and see if it passes.
I have seen that happen before. I am certain it will not kill the game that we improve the constitution. No need to treat an ugly duckling like a dear baby.

Peer pressure is also mob rule. The problem with peer pressure, is that is based on pulling rank, one way or another. Rules would flatten the playing field, and everyone would be accountable to the same rules, not to the same people. This would make it more feasible to go for some solutions, as you are backed by fair rules, not by the temporary strongmen happening to read ones post and liking/disliking them. Peer pressure as we see it now, is this games feudalism, which the last terms development is an example of.

The constitution needs an amendment.

It is also hard to know which polls are honest these days, we rather agree on what they should have as a minimum. I am beyond the point trusting that the Judiciary, or someone else, will police these fairly.

Yes, the Liberalism Poll was a very bad one.

Yes, the Liberalism Poll was a very bad one.
Just to be clear, I was giving a hypothetical example where a poll would be invalid. While I don't like the lack of information, the current liberalism poll doesn't rise to the standard of invalid, in my opinion.

Maybe not invalid at face value. But it is misleading, what is the consequence for that?

Can you make this amendment:

Before you make a poll, you must make a discussion-fred for 2 days; so there is a discussion first and all citizens can give the necessary information.
Additional: Only an extra official can make the poll itself.

Maybe not invalid at face value. But it is misleading, what is the consequence for that?

If this comment is aimed at the current liberalism poll, I don't see anything misleading either.

Additional: Only an extra official can make the poll itself.

If this is meant to take away the right of any citizen to post a poll on any matter, then no my opinion is that right cannot be taken away. The section in the Constitution on initiatives was crafted after many incidents over demogame history of officials refusing to poll an action when requested, and refusing to consider a citizen's poll as binding.

Let's get this topic back on track. As the discussion of the entire act in one piece proofs difficult I think we should discuss this act bit by bit. This won't work if people ignore this so please stick to the section of the act currently discussed.

Section I: Poll requirements
Poll requirements enable Officials, Designated Players and Citizens to identify an invalid poll. If one or more of the following poll requirements are omitted the poll is invalid.

The initial post must be stated in a clear and neutral manner, giving a summary of the reason for the poll.
The poll question and poll options must be stated in a clear and neutral manner.
Polls must explain how the results will be interpreted in the initial post. If the initial post does not explain this, the single option with the most votes is deemed the winner. The interpretation may not change after 2 hours from the posting of the poll.
Polls cover one and only one question.
Polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days.
Polls that cover an actionable item in the Civ 4 game or the Demogame meta-game are initiatives, and thus binding.
Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by our Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618).

Invalid polls, whether votes have been cast in them or not, cannot be used in any decision making process, or used as justification for any action based on that poll. The validity of polls will be reviewed by the Yasutan Supreme Court, as our Constitution (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618) proscribes.

There should be no argumentation for one or several choices in the first post at all, and all options should be listed in alphabetic order or by order of numeric succession (for science polls, number of turns research, for wonder builds, number of turns to build or for war objectives, 1. The ranking of the least extreme option (one city) to more extreme options (several cities) and the sequenced proximity from our border to the closest military objective if there is a choice of objectives of the same number.

Polls may cover only one question, but if prerequisites are needed to enact the decision, the poll should notify which discussions and polls impacting these prerequisites. It should also be legitimate to write the question to include several actions that occur at once in the very same turn, actions that fit into one single strategy. (For example, changing 2-4 civics at once the same turn we conquer a specific city and make that balance out with concluding researching a tech same turn.).

Polls may cover only one question, but if prerequisites are needed to enact the decision, the poll should notify which discussions and polls impacting these prerequisites. It should also be legitimate to write the question to include several actions that occur at once in the very same turn, actions that fit into one single strategy. (For example, changing 2-4 civics at once the same turn we conquer a specific city and make that balance out with concluding researching a tech same turn.).

This can be handled quited easily by proper wording of the question and answers. It is quite permissible for an official to determine the sense of the people via discussion and then post a poll asking for approval of the package deal.

Shall the civics be changed to Vassalage, Organized Religion, and Representation on turn 2?
Yes/No/Abstain

This is much better than having a poll with all possible combinations of civics.

This can be handled quited easily by proper wording of the question and answers. It is quite permissible for an official to determine the sense of the people via discussion and then post a poll asking for approval of the package deal.

Shall the civics be changed to Vassalage, Organized Religion, and Representation on turn 2?
Yes/No/Abstain

This is much better than having a poll with all possible combinations of civics.
But the poll options aren't exhaustive. If you want a really good poll you should allow people to choose every option, even though that means you get a long list.

This can be handled quited easily by proper wording of the question and answers. It is quite permissible for an official to determine the sense of the people via discussion and then post a poll asking for approval of the package deal.

Shall the civics be changed to Vassalage, Organized Religion, and Representation on turn 2?
Yes/No/Abstain

This is much better than having a poll with all possible combinations of civics.


This is why we need to regulate for example civics discussions, so that the different package deal can be prepared for polling on the same terms, to show the real alternatives. I would much prefer this kind of poll:

A) CIVICS CHANGE: VASSALAGE, SERFDOM + ORGANIZED RELIGION TURN 3 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF MOSCOW

B) CIVICS CHANGE: NATIONALISM, CASTE SYSTEM + FREE RELIGION TURN 8 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF ODESSA

C) CIVICS CHANGE: BUREAUCRACY, SLAVERY + PAGANISM TURN 10 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF KIEV

TO

CIVICS CHANGE: VASSALAGE, SERFDOM + ORGANIZED RELIGION TURN 3 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF MOSCOW

and then suddenly have one angry guy jumping up with a "citizen input" repoll 3 hours later with

B) CIVICS CHANGE: NATIONALISM, CASTE SYSTEM + FREE RELIGION TURN 8 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF ODESSA

and then, one drunk lad comes home from town, wanting to make yet another poll the first citizen that polled his own initiative failed to do.

C) CIVICS CHANGE: BUREAUCRACY, SLAVERY + PAGANISM TURN 10 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF KIEV

Then we go a judicial civil war over polls because someone came up with the first two-dimensional poll before the discussion was over.

I would say that the discussions themselves should have a defined timestamp as well, so people know how long time they have to provide input. Otherwise we see rash coups of "citizen pollers" pushing through their will 8 hours into a discussion. Letting the discussion run its course, then have someone poll the presented options (which have to be made clear in "quotation packages" with defined wording on what to do, where the question of the discussion asks for proposals to solve a certain problem).

If someone cannot articulate such a pollable option in a two day discussion, they should probably not poll it in the first place.

Let us say we want turnchats every 5 day. The genesis of a TC week.

Day 1-
Immediately after turnchat, we see a review of the game, chatlog and save, which is the core info of a demogame.

Day 2-
Then we need two days to run full discussions from day 2 and onwards, these discussions should be official and defined, and target all of the problems. Such discussion threads not posted within 48 hours after the turnchat would not be legitimate for comparative polls, for example.

This would force us to discuss in discussion threads and give clear, researched options, not bullying each other with one-sided singular polls too soon. A full fledged discussion where citizens present pollable options for key decisions would be important here, also in order to include these decisions in the bigger picture.

Day 3-
The official for each area polls the options presented in their discussions. This means that the science leader only polls the discussed options, not all of the game options as we see today. This would focus on the value of discussions.
Otherwise, we see the main tech debate go on in the polls.

Day 4. Polls are posted well 2 days ahead of the TC itself, with all the proposals presented in the discussions that took place in Day 2-3.

Day 5. Votes are counted and official makes last minute alterations to their plans made on polls.

Day 5 TC is played according to arranged schedule, Chain of Command kicks in if someone does not show up within 20 minutes.


If we do this, we would get a more civilized demogame, as we both abolish self-centered officials and mob rule, and everyone gets a say in an orderly and transparent fashion.

Polls that cover an actionable item in the Civ 4 game or the Demogame meta-game are initiatives, and thus binding.

How does this fit in with so-called information polls? I'm generally in favor of the wording here excpet we must make it clear that only closed polls can be binding.

Other than that, I'm very hesitant to vote for an initiative that automatically invalidates polls.

How does this fit in with so-called information polls? I'm generally in favor of the wording here excpet we must make it clear that only closed polls can be binding.

Other than that, I'm very hesitant to vote for an initiative that automatically invalidates polls.

Limiting binding polls to closed polls is OK only if the definition of "closed" includes those polls which end at the beginning of a play session but no longer than 24 hours prior to the designated end of the poll, due to the forum software limitation requiring poll durations in whole numbers of days only. :)

It should come as no surprise that I'm also against automatic invalidation, or language which requires a ruling for invalidation based on a fixed rule.

Sry
That i make this inquiry:
Why do you three have the same avatar? It's confusing me!

Sry
That i make this inquiry:
Why do you three have the same avatar? It's confusing me!

"hush, the baby is sleeping"

So, our three partners agree about their avatar.

Best regards,

Four now!!!!

Well, I counted five last time.

Citizen's Initiative - The Polling Act of 1655 AD

Introduction
As polling is at the core of our decision-making process, guidelines and requirements for polls must exist. Poll requirements are poll properties that enable Officials, Designated Players and Citizens to identify an invalid poll. If one or more poll requirements are omitted the poll may be found to be invalid by the Judiciary at any time, as the result of an official complaint or by the Judiciary's own instignation (see Citizen's Initiative - Poll Invalidation Act of 1680 BC (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=214451)). Nonetheless, Officials, Designated Players and Citizens are free to approch the Judiciary with requests to investigate a poll on other grounds too.


Guidelines and Requirements

Guidelines
Poll options that are not immediately obvious should be explained in the initial post.
Polls should run for at least 2 days to allow every Citizen and Official to vote.
When making complicated decisions, polls should start at the general level (Do A or B), then get detailed (Do A in manner X or Do A in manner Y). Conditional polls are valid (If we decide to do A, do it in manner X or Y), and may be posted at the same time as the initial poll.
Polls should be preceded by discussion, with a proposed poll posted in that discussion.
Requirements
The initial post must be stated in a clear and neutral manner, giving, when applicable, a summary of the related discussion(s).
The poll question and poll options must be stated in a clear and neutral manner. All poll options must be exhaustive (all relevant poll options are available) and mutually exclusive (every poll option covers a unique choice).
Polls must explain in the initial post how the poll result will be interpreted. A lack of such explanation means the single option with the most votes wins. The explanation of the interpretation may not change after 1 hour from the posting of the poll. If a poll requires a different interpretation after all a new poll must be made.
Polls will cover one and only one question.
Polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days.
Polls that cover an actionable item in the Civ 4 demogame II or the DG meta-game are initiatives, and thus binding.
Polls may not cover a subject already being polled. The outcome of the other poll dealing with the subject must be awaited before repolling the subject.
Jurispudence
The status of the Abstain option has been determined by the Citizens of Yasutan in an earlier stage (see The Status of Abstain (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=208972)). Abstain votes should not be counted towards the winning vote. Plurality polls have been found binding in a similar way, see Binding Plurality Poll Act (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=211395). Plurality Polls are binding. Polls can be private or public, unless mandated otherwise by our Constitution (see The Constitution, Article D sub 2 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=206618). Naturally, only closed polls are binding.

In the proposed initiative the 2 day requirement is listed under both guidelines and requirements, it should probably be listed under requirements only.

Other than that I think this is a very good guideline for polling, it would have my vote.

I would still like to link this with official discussions, nominated poll option proposals by citizens in official poll option thread and so on.

that assumes the existence of 'official' discussions and poll option threads, while those may exist if the DG reorganization goes through those would probably be best added by amendment when and if that reorganization happens. That way this initiative can take effect quickly and begin to fix problems right away.

Maybe 'links to relevant discussions' should be added under guidelines for now.

I think we need "official discussions" where we can post relevant arguments to a relevant pollable problem. I also read an old proposal from Falcon02 asking for a system where we poll proposed options from such a proposed thread, why was he ignored and sidetracked? His solution, like this would help a lot to solve the problem. Again, we can have a simple, effective and transparent ruleset without extreme flexibility, extreme chaos and extreme relativism.

I think we need "official discussions" where we can post relevant arguments to a relevant pollable problem. I also read an old proposal from Falcon02 asking for a system where we poll proposed options from such a proposed thread, why was he ignored and sidetracked? His solution, like this would help a lot to solve the problem. Again, we can have a simple, effective and transparent ruleset without extreme flexibility, extreme chaos and extreme relativism.
Can you point me to his post, Provo? I didn't sidetrack any proposal on purpose, 120 posts of contributions is simply difficult to take in.

Here you go.

Basically, the idea is what I have been proposing, except that I am more specific. Falcon02 once suggested to propose pollable options in an official tech proposal thread, and only options suggested there within a deadline would be polled. The proposed solution would be the length of a turnchat, that would say, the volume of techs that would fit into that particular turnchat, before the session ended. This allows for fair and transparent rules.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=217551

I am yet more explicit. I want these discussions to be open for a defined period, so people know how fast they need to submit tech poll options. If someone pops up with an idea 4 hours later, sorry for them, it will not be polled. This and similar initiatives secure a good flow, rewards regular players who know to post early enough and avoids interruption. If course, the chaotic, relativistic and self-centered crowd do not see this need for predictability, and would claim it is not needed.

I think you mean something less rigid to be honest. What you propose looks more like giving people a fixed period of time to conjure options for a poll. I don't believe you really want the discussion to die off after a fixed period namely.

yes, exactly, that is what I meant. The discussion can of course take place in the poll, but there will be only pollable options from the poll proposal tech thread.

I like to support your proposal then. If people come up with a new poll option they can always start a new poll that includes the new option once the old poll covering the same subject closed or if the old poll covering the same subject is locked by moderator action.

Good call, and that would also make the person coming up with the idea late to look a bit daft and troublesome, and people can begin to ask questions why this was done late.

Or the person wanting to add a new option has very limited time but is more brilliant than the rest of the populace who didn't notice it. Instead of making assumptions about why options are added late and assuming it's always a bad thing to have late breaking developments, we should be open.

Or the person wanting to add a new option has very limited time but is more brilliant than the rest of the populace who didn't notice it. Instead of making assumptions about why options are added late and assuming it's always a bad thing to have late breaking developments, we should be open.
I don't like the qualification used by Provolution either but we have to realise that we cannot play this game if we wait forever. We have to get on with issues and be a little more strict.

Problem is, the present system gives no real flow. And I think that with longer periods between turnchats, even the most brilliant and busy would be capable of posting their ideas in time, if they are that brilliant.

I've thought about the problem of what poll options to include and how long to wait for new poll options to arrive. But how to improve the quality of poll options also crossed my mind.

When running elections we expect nominees to gather support from other citizens for their (self-)nomination. We can introduce this system for poll options too. If noone likes a poll option introduced by me then it won't make it to the poll, given that the lack of support is supported by facts.

Still left is the question of how long do we wait with putting up a poll. If we take a 1 week interval as the standard (from which a DP may deviate) then I really think that after 4 days of discussion we should get to the polling stage, which will normally take 2 days.

It is very important that we got a double time-stamp on the official discussions handling poll options. The OP should then summarize all presented options, and the nominee in parentheses.

For example a tech poll:

Railroads (Hyronymous)
Chemistry (Grant2004)
Nationalism (robboo)

no, no, no!

I'm running the current session on 5 days gap, and there has been next to no discussion and absolutely no polling on what will happen in-game. We do not need even more time to discuss nothing and poll nothing.

Putting the sponsors name on poll options makes it similar to a user-specific poll. As we say in the Southwest, no way Jose.

Both of our real problems with polling this game have been triggered by an official who ignored citizen requests. Take away the problem of officials ignoring citizens, and we don't have polling issues. All of this is wasted effort trying to fix a problem which doesn't really exist.

You seem to have a fixed view with me as a person DS, but it is much bigger than that. You can project your frustration in my general direction, but the constitution has for long outlived its usefulness.
Citizen requests should not only be "listened to", but unfiltered be part of the actual decision process as part of a sponsored poll, as it was part of a parliamentary or congressional system. Yes, I want back the feeling we are running a state, not a glorified succession game or a judicial game

I read up on some of the threads, and you guys had serious problems with the constitution and game rules long before the German Longbowman and the Engineering Poll. Please do not divert attention from the real problem.

I can produce links to all these problems in a separate thread if you want to.

Your current session is proof to nothing, it is only a temporary state or a state of fatigue. Some supporters just want to play the game, and be done with it, and those that disagree on how things should be run or have strong ideas about it, simply do not want the argument.
At this point of the game, strong views on how to do things differently are more or less considered a crime.

If we had a culture of active and detailed planning, with more intel, reporting, screenshots and so on, the game would be much better. The problem is that efforts to make the game more detailed and engaging are simply discouraged. Not only by the posters, but also by the inherent structure itself.

Drama! Drama!

And nothing of substance. Nothing.

Provo - I'm calling you out. Right here. Rewrite the rules. All of the ones you consider bad. For this game. You have certainly proved your ability to complain - I want to see your ability to fix what you see to be a problem.

-- Ravensfire

no, no, no!

I'm running the current session on 5 days gap, and there has been next to no discussion and absolutely no polling on what will happen in-game. We do not need even more time to discuss nothing and poll nothing.

Putting the sponsors name on poll options makes it similar to a user-specific poll. As we say in the Southwest, no way Jose.

Both of our real problems with polling this game have been triggered by an official who ignored citizen requests. Take away the problem of officials ignoring citizens, and we don't have polling issues. All of this is wasted effort trying to fix a problem which doesn't really exist.
I didnt put it in the Polling Act yet because I expected opposition. I'm really tired of the constant complaints against any proposal on this subject though while too liitle solutions are offered. I'm going to poll the latest version of my Polling Act and hope the best for it.