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. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=205453)

I voted none of the above. However, if that option doesn't win I'm going to repoll this to allow people who voted it to have a chance to determine how we're going to invalidate polls.

I voted for "Use an internal poll mechanism such as a none of the above option". I think another useful possibility is a second yes/no poll canceling the first poll (e.g. if the first fails to include NOTA or somesuch).

I voted to use a person or committee.

I suggest have the Judicial Branch be that committee. All three officers must vote unanimously (sp?) to invalidate a poll for it to happen.

It makes sense to me that it should be the job of the Judicial Branch to validate law making polls.

I am totally against one person having the power, such as a Censor!

What's a legislative branch? Or did you mean judicial branch? ;)

My vote for individual / committee is driven primarily by two factors, reliability that bad polls are always invalidated, and speed.

Taking speed first, I'd like the invalidation to occur as early as possible, while there is still time to post a repaired poll. By its very nature, a mechanism within the poll pretty much has to wait for the poll to finish before it can determine there was a problem.

As for reliability, a mechanism within the poll won't work because a bunch of people might vote thinking the poll is OK before someone comes along and points out the problem. Also a small number of people could vote "bad poll" instead of "no" in order to block an action they don't like.

And before someone mentions the history regarding lack of reliability of individual censors or committees in the form of unfair actions, let me be clear. Invalidating a good poll unfairly, or failing to invalidate a bad poll unfairly, can be viewed as worthy of a ban. Not the preferred outcome, but you don't need to worry about it getting out of control.

And don't get any ideas about calling my Censorial term unfair -- look closely and you'll see I did not invalidate any polls. I talked about what kinds of polls might be invalidated, but nothing was actually done.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

What's a legislative branch? Or did you mean judicial branch? ;)

Whoops, edited. :blush:

Just a reminder, this is a multi-choice poll. It is not a referendum on which exclusive method to use. You can vote for invalidating polls by committee or by internal mechanism since these options are not mutually exclusive.

@Ravensfire: Your proposed judicial method is quite scary. All three justices have to agree that a poll is invalid?

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

Donsig, does an internal mechanism include the Judiciary? Somewhat in line with Ravensfire I think that citizens should be able to ask the Judiciary to look at a poll, by PM but preferrably by public forum post. That's why I'm asking :).

I thought our new logic determines all polls be binding. Wouldn't this be binding as well?

End result - polls can be quickly validated. If it truly is a bad poll, and should be invalidated, it can be done, but will take a bit more effort.

I'm not concerned with ever validating polls. All polls are assumed to be valid unless they are found to be invalid.

If it truly is bad, and the ones we're talking about are really bad, then a quick decision to invalidate is imperative. I'd expect one Justice to be able to declare a poll invalid, or at least declare an injunction against implementing the poll's result until the claim against it has been resolved.


Of course, without any polling standards, it's really hard to invalidate a poll, isn't it?


Any poll with false or misleading information in the OP or the poll options is invalid. Leaving off a significant option would qualify as misleading. This takes care of the polls of the following type, unless we've already decided to definitely go to war with someone, because "Don't declare war at all" is not included as an option.

Who shall we declare war against?
* France
* Germany

I thought our new logic determines all polls be binding. Wouldn't this be binding as well?

It's not actionable, meaning it does not compel any direct in or out of game action. It merely tells whomever drafts the initiative what things should be considered during that drafting effort. Then the initiative itself must be ratified, and could fail to get the necessary support.

I know, rather ironic, isn't it? :lol:

Using both ravensfire's idea and my own (which are similar) lets try this. If a justice official believes a poll should be labeled invalid he/she makes a post in that poll thread stating the poll is currently suspended until such time the judicial branch can make a legal determination. If the three justices come to the conclusion it is valid the poll continues on (possibly requiring a mod to extend the length of the poll, or reopen it).

If they decide its invalid the poll is closed by the judicial branch.

As already stated, all polls are considered valid when created.

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

The presumption you're going on is that the poll is invalid.

I'm curious where you get that, as I explicitly state that all polls are considered valid from creation. Look at the last line in my post.

Good discussion all around. Thanks guys. :)

I agree (with everyone else?) that we want to assume polls are valid unless otherwise invalidated. I'm skeptical of Ravensfire's all-justices-must-agree but hopefully the judiciary will not be our only means of invalidating a poll. I love DaveShack's suggestion that one judicial member can put a hold (so to speak) on the poll results until the judiciary makes a decision. This could work as long as we all agree that such a hold means only that the results of the poll are not binding during the hold. We wouldn't want to delay the game.

@Hyronymus: An internal mechanism would not include the judiciary thing as proposed by Ravensfire. Internal means internal to the poll itself. I guess it could mean the poll poster drags his poll before the judiciary to get it pre-validated. Including such a pre-validation in the poll would qualify as internal, wouldn't it? An pre-validation can work side by side with any invalidation process we settle on.

@Ravensfire: Judiciary members not posting? That's impossible, isn't it?

And then there is the question about what standards to use. There are none. Simple as that. Why - we haven't bothered to finish the polling standards we started. So far, it hasn't been a problem. The idea of invalidating based on "unwritten" and changing standards is just plain wrong. AND you want to make it easy to do?


The standard I posted (no misleading or false information) is a forum rule. Surely you don't plan to object to that?

I will have to take unilateral action if necessary. As I said before, I sincerely hope it's never necessary. Plenty of opportunity will be given for a citizen-initiated rule, as long as nobody goes nuts with trying to make a test case of it.

Since you are bringing that into this, DaveShack, I leave this entirely in your supposedly capable hands. Even with other, misleading and unfair polls used in the past without comment.

I remove all my comments from poll discussions.

EDIT: Comments removed.

-- Ravensfire

I remove all my comments from poll discussions.

EDIT: Comments removed.

Now this is just stupid and angering to me. How are we supposed to get all the opinions on the subject if you remove your posts? I typically wait for the last minute to vote and will reread the discussion before voting. Do not remove your posts for whatever reason.

Since you are bringing that into this, DaveShack, I leave this entirely in your supposedly capable hands. Even with other, misleading and unfair polls used in the past without comment.


You have plenty of opportunity to ensure it doesn't come up. Whether you choose to use that opportunity or not is completely up to you.

I guess it's easier to run from the potential problem than it is to fix it. Disappointing.

I guess it's easier to run from the potential problem than it is to fix it. Disappointing.
Disappointment is seeing you pull out the stick on this. That's fine with me - but I'm certainly not going to work towards a solution with that. We've had many, many bad polls in the past, and not ONE was invalidated by a moderator.

And yet here, that threat was made. Very well - I see no reason for me to participate further in the discussion over poll validations when the mods have said they will handle it for us.

-- Ravensfire

Now this is just stupid and angering to me. How are we supposed to get all the opinions on the subject if you remove your posts? I typically wait for the last minute to vote and will reread the discussion before voting. Do not remove your posts for whatever reason.
Sorry, but my opinion and thoughts are no longer relevant in this discussion, only those of our moderators. You should ask them for your opinion on the matter.

-- Ravensfire

And yet here, that threat was made. Very well - I see no reason for me to participate further in the discussion over poll validations when the mods have said they will handle it for us.


if it's not handled by you all...

Sorry, but my opinion and thoughts are no longer relevant in this discussion, only those of our moderators. You should ask them for your opinion on the matter.


This isn't PDMA because there hasn't been any action taken. There won't be any action taken, if there aren't any places where it is needed.

Any poll with false or misleading information in the OP or the poll options is invalid. Leaving off a significant option would qualify as misleading. This takes care of the polls of the following type, unless we've already decided to definitely go to war with someone, because "Don't declare war at all" is not included as an option.

Who shall we declare war against?
* France
* Germany

The standard I posted (no misleading or false information) is a forum rule. Surely you don't plan to object to that?

I will have to take unilateral action if necessary. As I said before, I sincerely hope it's never necessary. Plenty of opportunity will be given for a citizen-initiated rule, as long as nobody goes nuts with trying to make a test case of it.

A test case? Who would make a test case? You're not throwing jabs again are you DaveShack?

Seriously, are you saying that the poll example in that first quote from you is against forum rules because it's misleading and therefore you could step in as a moderator and invalidate the poll? Remember, I started this question with seriously.

Can someone answer these 2 questions for me?

What is against citizens (forum members) pointing a moderator to an unfair poll?

What is against citizens (forum members) pointing an internal DemoGame mechanism to an unfair poll which then makes a moderator aware of the unfair poll (in case noone but the moderator notices an unfair poll, the moderator is free to take action unilaterally, of course)?

Basically I agree with Methos:

There must be someone to see and declare the invalidity of a poll;

This "someone" must be the Judiciary;

Any poll is deemed valid until declared it is not;

Since the moment one Justice posts the validity question, the poll is in a hold;

Unanimous decision required from Judges? But if the three Justices do not

vote the same way (it can happen) then just two outputs remain possible:

Or the poll is valid Or the poll is invalid, and that must be very clear;

(Do we really want the unanimity rule?).

Last, may be better Justice not to poll as Citizen...

Best regards,

A test case? Who would make a test case? You're not throwing jabs again are you DaveShack?

No, I'd never do that. :lol:


Seriously, are you saying that the poll example in that first quote from you is against forum rules because it's misleading and therefore you could step in as a moderator and invalidate the poll? Remember, I started this question with seriously.

I believe it is possible that some instance of such a poll could be against forum rules, like ones which blatantly disregard the situation and attempt to force the citizens into a path by denying the alternative. It's a judgement call, just like the difference between scholorly discource and trolling is a judgement call. Which, BTW, we're being pretty liberal about. ;) (This is not a comment specifically about your posting, but about the DG in general)

Other instances might be simple mistakes, like "duh, I forgot that option."

There are other preferable ways to handle it, like the simple and obvious "ask the initiator to post a new poll" and "the DG citizens rise up against the injustice and invalidate it".

The claim was made that "there are no standards". Actually, there were some very well-written ones, one of which was the same "false and misleading" rule worded a different way. To paraphrase that which can no longer be quoted
The poll must contain all relevant options The question, poll options, and initial post must be stated clearly, fairly, and as neutrally as possible.

I apologize, DaveShack (and to my fellow citizens for this partially off-topic rant), but I must respectfully disagree. A moderator stepping in when things get out of hand, I can handle. Correcting mistakes made when one posts a poll? That's acceptable too. But stepping into a process that we are trying to handle within the law steps over a line, in my opinion, would be the first step down a slippery slope.

It's this kind of idea - that a moderator can interfere in business that would otherwise be handled by procedures enshrined in law - that led to a law in the Civ3DG1 and DG2 that banned moderators from holding elective office. If I remember correctly, we repealed that provision when Shaitan, then one of our most active citizens, was appointed a mod - and since then, our citizen-moderators have been able to keep moderator functions and demogame administrative functions separate.

Yes, there are cases where a posted poll goes against forum rules - for instance, when the poll is blatantly libelous. But where does one draw the line defining what is actionable in forum rules when a poll is "knowingly false"?

For the record, I'm working on the assumption that this is the rule being cited
You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, racist, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by this forum.

Can you guys actually try and answer my questions too? Until someone has addressed them I won't vote and I refuse to go for the easy solution and vote none of the above/abstain.

Can someone answer these 2 questions for me?
What is against citizens (forum members) pointing a moderator to an unfair poll?What is against citizens (forum members) pointing an internal DemoGame mechanism to an unfair poll which then makes a moderator aware of the unfair poll (in case noone but the moderator notices an unfair poll, the moderator is free to take action unilaterally, of course)?

I'm not sure how to interpret these questions. Are you trying to ask people why they don't want to just use the post reporting mechanism, or are you asking if reporting the post would be a viable method of handling it?

Again for the record, my preference is an individual citizen or group of citizens who have the power to quickly mark a bad poll as invalid.

I apologize, DaveShack (and to my fellow citizens for this partially off-topic rant), but I must respectfully disagree. A moderator stepping in when things get out of hand, I can handle. Correcting mistakes made when one posts a poll? That's acceptable too. But stepping into a process that we are trying to handle within the law steps over a line, in my opinion, would be the first step down a slippery slope.

It's this kind of idea - that a moderator can interfere in business that would otherwise be handled by procedures enshrined in law - that led to a law in the Civ3DG1 and DG2 that banned moderators from holding elective office. If I remember correctly, we repealed that provision when Shaitan, then one of our most active citizens, was appointed a mod - and since then, our citizen-moderators have been able to keep moderator functions and demogame administrative functions separate.

Yes, there are cases where a posted poll goes against forum rules - for instance, when the poll is blatantly libelous. But where does one draw the line defining what is actionable in forum rules when a poll is "knowingly false"?

The protection that is needed is against polls which are intentionally crafted to be unfair, to deprive the citizens of their right to play the game as they collectively want to. Under a doctrine of "all polls are binding" without any standards or mechanism to ensure fairness, it could be trivially easy to use well-timed polls with limited options (in particular leaving off the dissenting option) to force the game in any direction one wants to go.

The citizens should make rules to keep this from happening. If not, and an emergency developed where the only way to salvage the game is to step in, then step in we must.

I don't want there to ever be a need to invoke that protection.

I don't even think it is likely that someone would resort to sabotage, but laws should not govern the normal case, they should put limits on the abnormal case.

I argued against mods deciding which game version to use back on Civ3 when it was a choice between vanilla and conquests. This game I went to a lot of trouble to entice the people to choose vanilla so we wouldn't have to "suggest" it officially. Look carefully at how the starting date was derived and you'll see that I advocated a date but never mandated it.

I'm not sure how to interpret these questions. Are you trying to ask people why they don't want to just use the post reporting mechanism, or are you asking if reporting the post would be a viable method of handling it?
Both, it are 2 independent questions but I fail to see how the issues being raised answer any of the problems. Maybe my understanding of English isn't that good afterall or are the issues raised too side-tracked.

OK, that's a fair observation.

The question of whether moderators should intervene is completely a side issue, at least in my opinion. The options in this poll are:


Designate one or more citizens who have the responsibility for marking polls invalid.
Include something within the poll itself, such as an option which says "this poll is bad". If more than some percent (5% maybe) or number (3 people) vote for that option, then the poll is bad and gets marked invalid.
Don't even have the option of a poll being invalid. If someone thinks a poll is bad, just post another poll.


This is my opinion, as a citizen, on these options.

I very strongly support #1. I also want to make sure that the people designated for stopping bad polls take this action as quickly as possible when they find the poll to be bad. More on that later.

I think that option #2 has a serious problem. In the normal case of a good poll, a small number of people, like 5% or 3 people, could decide they don't want the poll to have any effect. Their side (for example the NO side) is losing in the poll, but they can force their side to "win" by voting "bad poll", because "no" means keep things as they are.

I also think that option #3 has a problem. If the bad poll closes an hour before the play session, then there is no opportunity for someone to post a replacement poll which will finish before the game is played. The DP would have no choice but to follow the 1st, bad poll's outcome.

Other people support option #2 because they think the officials elected in #1 could be corrupted, and either ignore bad polls or mark good ones invalid. This is very much an important opinion because in the last game we had an official (Censor) for invalidating polls, and some of the people elected to that position did mark polls invalid. The reasons used by the Censors were later shown to be unfair.

My counter to the argument against a validating authority is that we can always just add a rule to balance the validator's power.

If all polls were public, so it is possible to prosecute people who incorrectly vote "bad poll", then option #2 would become more workable, but it still suffers from the problem that if people don't recognize it as bad until it is too late, there is no way to keep the polls result from happening.

Hope this description helps.

I argued against mods deciding which game version to use back on Civ3 when it was a choice between vanilla and conquests. This game I went to a lot of trouble to entice the people to choose vanilla so we wouldn't have to "suggest" it officially. Look carefully at how the starting date was derived and you'll see that I advocated a date but never mandated it.

So, you admit you've gone over to the Dark Side. :lol: Maybe you don't realize it but that moderator badge of yours carries alot of weight with some of our citizens. You claim (and maybe even believe) that you're acting as just an ordinary run-of-the-mill citizen, but because of that badge your suggestions and enticements carry quite a bit of weight. I really think the internal invalidation is losing votes because of your repeated preference for the other option. I can understand your preference for one option over the other. But why are you treating this as if there is only one way to tackle the problem of problem polls? You are going out of your way to campaign against an internal mechanism. It seems more and more like you are angling for our approval for you as a mod to step in when you think it is necessary to declare a poll invalid.

And your arguments for doing so are very weak. You keep pointing to the obvious cases where we need a poll invalidated quickly. Just what is it about the rest of us that makes you think we won't jump all over an obviously bad poll? I mean if a poll is REALLY obviously bad then enough of us will see that and any invalidation mechanism we have in place will work because it is obviously a bad poll.

It's the not-so-obviously bad polls (especially concerning issues where no clear majority stance has been taken) that we need to worry about. These are the polls where the DG community needs freedom from mod intervention to work things out.

I think that option #2 has a serious problem. In the normal case of a good poll, a small number of people, like 5% or 3 people, could decide they don't want the poll to have any effect. Their side (for example the NO side) is losing in the poll, but they can force their side to "win" by voting "bad poll", because "no" means keep things as they are.

DaveShack you are distorting things here. Watch out or I might have to report you to a mod for being unfair. :nono: Three people or 5% of the voters can only due what you describe if there are a small number of voters or we are very split on an issue.

Also, invalidating a no poll is not the same as keep things as they are. Invalidating a poll means no decison has been made by this particular poll. This is a big difference, especially if we are going to have the guts to let our elected officials make decisons when we don't (or can't).

Other people support option #2 because they think the officials elected in #1 could be corrupted, and either ignore bad polls or mark good ones invalid. This is very much an important opinion because in the last game we had an official (Censor) for invalidating polls, and some of the people elected to that position did mark polls invalid. The reasons used by the Censors were later shown to be unfair.

My counter to the argument against a validating authority is that we can always just add a rule to balance the validator's power.

If all polls were public, so it is possible to prosecute people who incorrectly vote "bad poll", then option #2 would become more workable, but it still suffers from the problem that if people don't recognize it as bad until it is too late, there is no way to keep the polls result from happening.

DaveShack, why in Heaven's name would you want to make a rule to prosecute a citizen for how they voted in a poll? Maybe you shouild step away from that moderator badge for awhile and come back into the light.

This is not a poll about whether we should invalidate polls via an interal mechanism OR (read exclusive or) an outisde authority mechanism. This is not a poll about which is better. To me it is obvious that both systems have their strengths and both have their weaknesses - which is why I think both systems should be available to us.

I feel we may have had some straw men set up and nicely knocked over.


I think that option #2 has a serious problem. In the normal case of a good poll, a small number of people, like 5% or 3 people, could decide they don't want the poll to have any effect. Their side (for example the NO side) is losing in the poll, but they can force their side to "win" by voting "bad poll", because "no" means keep things as they are.


I don't see a compelling reason for a minority of voters to be able to declare a poll "bad". If the majority of the voters picked one of the offered items, then I think that validates the poll. I don't imagine there has ever been an election where at least one voter didn't wish there had been someone or something else on the ballot.


If all polls were public, so it is possible to prosecute people who incorrectly vote "bad poll", then option #2 would become more workable, but it still suffers from the problem that if people don't recognize it as bad until it is too late, there is no way to keep the polls result from happening.


Two thoughts:

-- "bad poll" may be a rather subjective decision. Some people may be quite happy with one (or more) of the choices while others feel completely excluded. I'm not comfortable with punishing someone who prefers more choices on his ballot.
-- I think the voter needs to take some responsibility for deciding when to vote and whether to object to the lack of options. If the voter rushes his vote and later decides he would have voted for a different option if it had been offered, is that anyone's problem but the voter's?


I also think that option #3 has a problem. If the bad poll closes an hour before the play session, then there is no opportunity for someone to post a replacement poll which will finish before the game is played. The DP would have no choice but to follow the 1st, bad poll's outcome.


One possibility is to allow the replacement poll to end at the same time as the original poll regardless of when the replacement started. The options on the replacement poll would be one of a list of new options OR to allow the original poll to stand.

@donsig,

I think you're missing an assumption. How many people need to object to the options in a poll before the poll is considered unfair?

Previous arguments (by people other than me btw) have been that a small number of people should be able to say the poll is unfair. If our objective is equal rights for all, then potentially just one person complaining about a poll should be enough. The problem at hand is how we distinguish a legitimate grievance from skillful manipulation.

My assertion is that the rule will need to be that a small number of people can block a poll's action by voting for the hypothetical "unfair poll" option. If not, then it won't protect citizen rights.

Example: we're at war and losing. some people want the war to continue no matter what.

Poll question : make a peace treaty?
without a "unfair poll" option
Yes - 20
No - 3

with a "unfair poll" option
Yes - 20
No - 0
Unfair - 3

If the rule is 3 people have to object, then play will continue without making peace. The 3 people get an unfair ability to force the war to continue.

Same hypothetical rules, 3 people must vote unfair

Declare war with? no "unfair poll" option
greece - 8
germany - 2
not voting - 9 (don't want a war at all) this is the biggest single option

With an "unfair poll" option
greece - 8
germany - 2
unfair - 3 (3rd vote triggers poll invalidation, 24-48 hours before the poll ends)

There is a leap of faith involving this example of course. Will one of the 10 total people who voted for war switch sides if a No option is included? Maybe, or maybe not. But the 9 people who definitely don't want war at least get the opportunity to see if the people voting "yes" really mean it or if they voted that way just because there is no "no".

So, to block the unfair poll we need to set the number of people needed to invalidate the poll as a small number. But if we set it to a small number, then a tiny majority can defy a huge majority by simply voting "unfair" instead of "no" in the 1st example of a peace treaty.

The people who hypothetically vote "unfair" on a poll which is clearly fair, in order to keep the poll's action from happening, are doing something which I think should be illegal. How do we determine if it's a legitimately unfair poll or someone manipulating the system? By due process, meaning we have to select someone to make that determination.


Now, is this a reason to not allow the "invalid poll" option? It depends on how much risk you want to take that someone will manipulate it. It depends on how low the bar will be set for how many people must pick that option. It depends on whether the appropriate balances are in place against a runaway minority.

My proposal:

Any person can ask the Judiciary to investigate the valadity of a poll. This investigation should be announced publicly with (or without) reveiling the name of the person that asked for the inquiry. It is then up to the Judiciary, and only the Judiciary1, to declare the investigated poll invalid. The Judiciary's ruling has to be made public and the Judiciary must do its outmost best to rule swiftly.

I am aware of the sentiments of laying all our trust in the Judiciary. Some of us are terrified that the Judiciary will favour the powers that be. That's why the investigation has to be public. Citizens can then analyse the ruling for themselves and take (legal) action against the Judiciary if they feel it's warranted.

1 Until the Judiciary ruled no moderator has the mandate to declare a poll invalid.

I agree with Hyronymus.

May be not even necessary a citizen request; Judiciary must look at polls,and,

if one Justice suspects invalidity, to investigate.

Best regards,

Invalidating a poll
There are two possible ways by which a poll can be invalidated:
A citizen or citizen group(s) can ask the Judiciary to investigate the valadity of a poll.
The Judiciary initiates an investigation into the valadity of a poll.Investigation request from a citizen or citizen group(s)
A citizen or citizen group(s) publicly request the Judiciary to investigate the validity of a poll. The request should be posted in the Office of the Judiciary of the active term and must be followed by a confirmation from the Judiciary that they will investigate the validity of a poll.
The Judiciary is bound to investigate every request made by a citizen or citizen group(s)1.

Investigation initiated by the Judiciary
The Judiciary publicly announces to investigate the validity of a poll. The announcement should be posted in the Office of the Judiciary of the active term.

Issueing the invalid verdict
It is then up to the Judiciary, and only the Judiciary2, to declare the investigated poll invalid. The Judiciary's ruling has to be made public and the Judiciary must do its outmost best to rule swiftly.

1 Blatant abuses will be dealt with swiftly in any case as they are blatant abuses. If however this turns out to be unworkable we can always amend it.
2 Until the Judiciary ruled no moderator has the mandate to declare a poll invalid.

(...) The request should be posted in the Term 1 Judiciary - The Court of the Big Rock (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=209635) (...)The announcement should be posted in the Term 1 Judiciary - The Court of the Big Rock (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=209635).

You might want to change those threads in a way that this can also be used after Term 1 has expired...

Otherwise: :agree:

You might want to change those threads in a way that this can also be used after Term 1 has expired...

Otherwise: :agree:
I fixed it :).

@donsig,

I think you're missing an assumption. How many people need to object to the options in a poll before the poll is considered unfair?

Enough to block any of the options from getting a majority.

I'm not sure how you guys manage but can anyone else except ori react on my proposal too? I think I made a fair proposal that also covers how many people need to object. Of course, this is subject to discussion (hence the proposal state).

I'm not sure how you guys manage but can anyone else except ori react on my proposal too?

Well, OK. I'm a newbie and my eyes start to glaze over with all these procedures whose utility is still theoretical to me. That's why I voted for the simpler concept of something automatic in the poll itself. HTH

I love DaveShack's suggestion that one judicial member can put a hold (so to speak) on the poll results until the judiciary makes a decision. This could work as long as we all agree that such a hold means only that the results of the poll are not binding during the hold. We wouldn't want to delay the game.


A non-decision, effectively sticking with the status quo, can be just as damaging as a decision which changes our course unfairly. I think this hold does indeed need to hold up play, which is why the actual determination of validity needs to be made as fast as it accurately can be.

What's that, you ask? Delay the game? Me, the champion of fast play wants to delay the game? :eek:

Unnecessary and unwarranted delays are bad. Delays which are longer than they need to be are bad. But necessary, short delays are good.

I'm not sure how you guys manage but can anyone else except ori react on my proposal too? I think I made a fair proposal that also covers how many people need to object. Of course, this is subject to discussion (hence the proposal state).

Your proposal is a good example of one way we might proceed with defining the method for invalidating by an individual or committee, since the Judiciary would qualify as a committee.

Substantively,

On the "two ways", since the Judiciary are also citizens, deciding on their own to investigate a poll is equivalent to one of them asking themselves to investigate. So it isn't really necessary to have the 2nd bullet. It won't hurt, but it does make the initiative longer.

Then on the descriptions of the two ways, I think the process should be the same no matter how it's initiated.

On regulating abuses of the proposed system, perhaps you could set a limit of 1 challenge per poll, and some small number (2? 1?) of challenges per player per term. Another way to regulate abuses would be to permit the Judiciary to rule that the challenge was abusive, and/or use the citizen complaint mechanism to decide on guilt and punishment.

A non-decision, effectively sticking with the status quo...

A non-decision is NOT the same as sticking with the status quo. There are many, many non-decisions in the course of a democracy game. We do not poll and discuss (or even post instructions for) all worker actions. Yet, when a worker is done with a task he does not stand idly by just because there is a non-decision about what he should do next. No, the DP gives him something to do. And hey, you know what? There was NO delay or halt to the game!

A forum poll is not (or should not be) the only means we have for making a decision. Yes, a decision made by a fair forum poll should be regarded as our highest and most sacred decision, to be overturned only by another good and fair forum poll. But we should (and always have) allowed for other forms of decision making. The include consensus by discussion, instruction by elected officials (in the absense of consensus or polled decisions) and DP perogative (in the absence of consensus, poll or instruction). Putting a judicial hold on a poll or invalidating a poll does not put these forms of decison making off limits. Invalidating a poll (either permanently or temporarily) merely means we all pretend the poll never existed.

...can be just as damaging as a decision which changes our course unfairly. I think this hold does indeed need to hold up play, which is why the actual determination of validity needs to be made as fast as it accurately can be.

Why does pretending a poll doesn't exist have to delay the game? As long as there is a chain of command (so to speak) for making decisions in the absence of a poll decision, there need be no delay. If the poll results in no decision then the proper official can assess the situation and decide what needs to be done. The official is not bound by the staus quo. The official is not bound by the results of the invalid poll but he is not bound to not follow the result either.

If we're voting on it already, doesn't that mean that someone thought the decision was important enough to require a vote? If we're thinking about invalidating it, doesn't that mean someone made it a bad poll to begin with, and has refused to fix it? Wouldn't that person have made the poll bad in order to take advantage of its biased result to get his way? Wouldn't holding the poll's binding status in limbo let such a person do their own thing with impunity because they can point to the "no decision" poll?

I'd probably reschedule the game session if facing this as a DP.

Thanks for the comments, DaveShack :), the reworded proposal looks like this:

Poll invalidation act

Initiating an investigation
Any citizen or citizen group, including the Judiciary itself, can ask the Judiciary to investigate the valadity of a poll. Such requests should be posted in the Office of the Judiciary of the active term.

Rules on initiating an investigation
To prevent abuse or initiating validity investigations for the sake of initiating validity investigations there are rules to the proces.
No citizen or citizen group can initiate a validity investigation over a poll that is being investigated or already has been investigated by the Judiciary.
No citizen or citizen group can initiate more then two validity investigations per term.The Judiciary must reject any initiative to investigate the validity of a poll that does not meet these rules. Initiatives to investigate the validity of a poll which meet these rules must be replied to by a notification from the Judiciary that they will start the investigation, even if the Judiciary initiated the investigation itself.
Violations of the rules on initiating an investigation are subject to the Judiciary's ruling.

Issueing the invalid verdict
Only the Judiciary has the right to declare a poll invalid. The Judiciary's ruling has to be made public in the corresponding thread in the Office of the Judiciary of the active term. The Judiciary must do its outmost best to rule swiftly.

No citizen or citizen group can initiate more then two validity investigations per term.

I would prefer something like the Hawk-eye system in tennis. Everyone has 2 "credit" to investigate a poll. When you ask for an investigation, and the result is that the poll is indeed invalid, then you keep your current credit. However if the result is that the poll is valid, you lose one of your credit points.

And I wouldn't give citizen groups the right to ask for an investigation as anyone could start up a citizen group just for the sake of asking for an investigation when they've already asked for 2 investigations that term.

I would prefer something like the Hawk-eye system in tennis. Everyone has 2 "credit" to investigate a poll. When you ask for an investigation, and the result is that the poll is indeed invalid, then you keep your current credit. However if the result is that the poll is valid, you lose one of your credit points.
That is a splendid idea!

And I wouldn't give citizen groups the right to ask for an investigation as anyone could start up a citizen group just for the sake of asking for an investigation when they've already asked for 2 investigations that term.
That makes sense too :).

If we're voting on it already, doesn't that mean that someone thought the decision was important enough to require a vote? If we're thinking about invalidating it, doesn't that mean someone made it a bad poll to begin with, and has refused to fix it? Wouldn't that person have made the poll bad in order to take advantage of its biased result to get his way? Wouldn't holding the poll's binding status in limbo let such a person do their own thing with impunity because they can point to the "no decision" poll?

I'd probably reschedule the game session if facing this as a DP.

All the questions you ask are possibilities but:


Just because someone thought a decision was important enough to poll doesn't mean it was actually important enough to poll.
If someone is thnking about invalidating it that does not mean it's a bad poll.
Bad polls are not necessarily bad on purpose.
Just because someone posted a poll that does not mean he or she is trying to get his or her way on something.


Halting a scheduled gameplay session because of a potentially bad poll is something I might argue for depending on the situation. Are you saying every bad poll has to stop play? If you are then you give anyone who wants to delay things the opportunity to do so JUST by posting a bogus poll.

Once again DaveShack, you worry about obviously bad things that will be obviously easy to fix. You seem to be trying to sell the idea that validating . invalidating a poll is quite easy. I don't think it's such a black and white thing. There are many grey areas when it comes to fair polling. If you really and truly want an easy system that will not delay the game (nor cause controversy) then you need to focus on making a system that can handle a poll that has some good things about it and some bad things about it. One that is really tough to say whether it is fair or not. One that is about an issue the DG community is basically split on.

Who shall we declare war against?
* France
* Germany

That was a little too prophetic. :p

:hmm:
;)

The results are in!

13 citizens voted only for using a person or committee to invalidate polls
2 citizens voted only for using an internal mechanism
10 citizens voted both for using a person or committee to invalidate polls and an internal mechanism
3 citizens voted only for none of the above
2 citizens voted only for abstain
1 citizen voted both abstain and for using an internal mechanism

Because 31 citizens voted in total, none of options above met a majority of those polls. We will most likely be using an invalidating person/committee, but should probably consider a runoff as to whether or not we will use an internal mechanism for invalidation in addition to the person/committee.

That's certainly a, umm, creative, way to analyze the results, Octavian.

Personally, I'd just go with:
23 out of 31 people supported the option to invalidate via committe or person
13 out of 31 people supported the option to invalidate via an internal mechanism
3 out of 3 people said none of the above
3 out of 3 people abstained.

The poll did include it's own interpretation method.

-- Ravensfire

This being a multiple choice poll, ravensfire, it seems appropriate to take into account the voters who want to see both systems implemented.

You are right, though, that I did miscount a bit. 13 people voted only for the first choice, not 12.

Even if interpreted the way Octavian X has analyzed the votes, there are more who only want the person/committee system (13) than want both (10).

The poll should be interpreted the way the originator specified.

It should be noted by all that although a decision here indicates what people wanted during this poll, it is by no means final, any more than any DG poll is final. The Consitution allows a later initiative to supercede the results of an earlier one. Any citizen is free to try again to convince the people that the internal mechanism should also be used.

I think it is clear there is enough support for having some sort of authority vested in someone to invalidate polls. The next step would be to start a discussion about who should have that authority.

I just can see there 42 votes.

And 3 votes are abstentions, so 39 to be counted.

One option got 3 votes; other option got 13 votes; so both got just a minority.

And another option got 23 votes.

23 votes out of 42; 23 votes out of 39 that can be counted.

So the clear will of the citizens/users/players is to have a person or commitee

to declare the invalidity.

Let us go on and decide which person or group shall take the task.

Best regards,

[...]So the clear will of the citizens/users/players is to have a person or commitee to declare the invalidity.

Let us go on and decide which person or group shall take the task.
I agree, there is nothing to discuss about how to invalidate polls now. Just who does it is the question now.

My understanding was that donsig posted this poll to gauge the Citizenry's interest in a variety of different methods of invalidation, rather than to pick the one that was most favored.

With that understanding in mind, I believe the poll suggests that two methods should now be discussed and polled further:

(A) Invalidation by some person/group/committee; and
(B) Invalidation by some internal mechanism in the poll (e.g. 20% of the vote for NotA or Abstain invalidates the poll)

I see no reason why we should now be limited to a discussion/poll of just the first option.

It looks some confusion here,IMHO.

Valid or invalid is the poll itself, not the votes it get.

Invalid polls should so be declared since the moment they are posted.

And a closed poll makes a decision according its writing, not according the

poster could have (or not) in his mind, but didn't write.

Best regards,