This citizen's organisation is committed to the creation of a set of universal standards for polls held within the Empire of Fanatika. I consider this to be a necessary endeavour, given the arguments that have arisen over the format and content of a number of polls in the none too distant past.

Memberlist:
Eklektikos
Disorganizer
Cyc
Donsig
Shaitan
Bill_in_PDX
Immortal
Almightyjosh

Please sign up, make your suggestions and let the debate begin in earnest!

I would like to begin by making the following suggestions:
[list=1]
The actual poll questions to be posted in the discussion thread 24 hours before opening the poll. This will ensure that the choices offered to the people accurately reflect those arrived at in the debate
Use of the "other" option to be prohibited. If the issue has been properly discussed beforehand this option is redundant. If the issue HASN'T been sufficiently discussed beforehand then it isn't ready to be polled on.
[/list=1]

next point:
* ABSTAIN should be in all polls as option. this would prevent citizens from not being able to vote because "their" option is not there.
* minimum length of 24 hours. this will allow most citizens to poll, even if absent for 1 day
* im in pro of the other-option, because maybe something important was missed. other should always contain the "please state below" text. only if there we will see if something has been properly discussed before the poll
* start- and enddate should be posted
* binding- or not-binding should be stated
* mandatory link to the coresponding disdussion thread is a must

Sign me up, Eklektikos. I like the idea of eliminating the "other" option as its principle is clear and true to the nature of polling. Good suggestion. Abstain will work for citizens who can't make up their mind.

I believe there are many different aspects of poll procedures to consider. From simple mechanics to more complex discussions. At this time I would like to re-post my original proposal on poll procedures, just to have it here for consideration (or even a complete over-haul).

At this time, no real proposals have been brought forward, although I have made quite a few suggestions. If we, as a nation, can agree on a fairly simple rule about what is required for a poll and what does a poll require us to do, then the problem will be initially resolved. This rule should be entered into the constitution as an amendment, approved by the Cabinet. This does not mean that the rule cannot be altered in the future by another discussion/poll/Cabinet vote. Our citizens may find a better path to take in creating polls. But let us start now, with a discussion.

IMO, a poll should be preceded by a discussion thread with the same heading or title as the poll. This discussion thread should not only originate but also be completed in its entirety in the same sub-forum as the poll. The discussion thread does not have a maximum length attached to it, but would have a minimum length of 24 hours. After 24 hours any citizen can post at the bottom of the discussion thread a request for a poll. If that request receives a second from another citizen, then that discussion can create a poll. The discussion creates the poll, not the person requesting a poll. The person requesting a poll can be the one to physically draw the poll up and list the options or they can request that some one else do it for them. Using decent ethics may require a discussion to be started between 1400 GMT and 0500 GMT. That point is very debatable, but would allow most citizens to become aware of the discussion and participate in it. Once the creation of the poll was seconded, it would be created with the same heading and the same sub-forum as the discussion thread. The poll would list unbiased all the options discussed or brought forward in the discussion thread. If a poll comes under criticism because it did not adhere to the standards, then any citizen can request a moderator to close the poll if it is deemed unconstitutional.

Thank you, Eklektikos, for starting this organisation. I hope many of our citizens participate, not just the people who will gain politically.

Please sign me up. I don't have much in the way of specific proposals right now what with the election and all.

I would like to point out that with the short time between turns we do not always have time for a discussion and a poll. Some decisions must be made quickly and I do not think we should prohibit quick decision making via polls.

not much activity here? why not!

Originally posted by disorganizer
not much activity here? why not!
'Cause I didn't see the thread! ;)

I agree in principle to most of what's been stated so far. Some differences are that I would not make poll procedures an amendment. We're moving to a more standard (real world) constitution and laws. Poll procedures would most likely be a standard, perhaps a law at worst. I think Cyc posted the comment on making an amendment before the discussion on constitution revamp began so just consider my point here a clarification.

We either need loose guidelines or a set of 2 guidelines. Generally speaking, the outline that Cyc gave is what we want. We want good discussion followed by a poll proposal followed by the actual poll. We also need to anticipate quick polls, as donsig mentioned. Perhaps make results of quick polls temporary? By their nature they are for emergency conditions so just make those polls capable of handling the immediate emergency. Full discussion and a planned poll would then be held after the situation if a permanent solution was warranted.

I like "Other". No matter how long a topic is discussed and how well the discussion thread is promoted there will be people who miss it or abandon it. There should always be an opportunity for a write in vote when appropriate.

We can now have true popularity polls!!!!! This means we can give a list of all possible options and people can select as many of them as they like. This would be fantastic in elections. There are 3 candidates and you like 2 of them - pick them both! This would ensure that the truly most popular candidate is elected.

I agree that Abstain should absolutely be an option in every poll. This is critical if we wish to successfully implement quorums.

So, to summarise those standards on which we currently appear to agree:[list=1]
All polls to be preceded by a discussion thread
Discussion threads to be open a minimum of 24 hours before the actual poll is considered
Proposal of poll options to be posted in discussion thread 24 hours before opening the poll
Start and end dates must be included in top post of all polls
Link to the relevant discussion thread must be included in the top post of all polls
"Abstain" option to be included in all polls
[/list=1]
If anyone opposes any one of the above items please post and say so.
This list (minus those items that receive opposition) will be displayed in the top post from tomorrow afternoon (GMT). As this thread goes on I will continue to add standards on which consensus has been achieved to this list. Eventually I aim to have compiled a coherent set of rules for polling which can be presented as an act of law (or whatever is appropriate to the political system current at that point). Keeping this list up to date should help to ensure that the discussion continues to move forward in a more ordered manner than previous debates on this subject.

i would also add:
4a) type of poll must be added in first post

i would propose a minimum of:
informational and official

and maybe we could implement a shortcut-letter in the name of the poll, like I: and O: and then the poll-name.
the "war!" poll would then for example be titled "I: war!". A departmental poll would be "O: what tech to research next?"

I like the I and O idea but it's not too intuitive for people less familiar with the rules. Maybe "Info Poll: War!" and "Official Poll: blah blah blah"?

Any comments on the temporary effects for quick polls idea?

Originally posted by disorganizer
i would also add:
4a) type of poll must be added in first post

i would propose a minimum of:
informational and official

and maybe we could implement a shortcut-letter in the name of the poll, like I: and O: and then the poll-name.
the "war!" poll would then for example be titled "I: war!". A departmental poll would be "O: what tech to research next?"
The idea is to add items as we go. Since this particular point is still under debate it should be added later once we've actually come up with a final uncontested standard for it. In that list I just wanted to set out what we'd agreed so far.

I'm fine with the time restrictions, provided we also develop a procedure for emergencies.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Any comments on the temporary effects for quick polls idea?
I like this idea, actually. My main problem with some of the speedier polls of the past was that they could affect permanent and fundamental changes to the game without the level of discussion such changes always warrant. I definitely think we should explore the possibilities of having "Temporary Measure" polls. I'd suggest that they should always have the "Measure Expiry Date" specified in the top post to make it clear when normal operation will resume. I'd also suggest that the results should only be valid if one option has a significant lead over the others - ie 2/3 of the vote or something along those lines, as well as some kind of quorum rule. I think controversy and accusations could well ensue if we took a major decision based on a speedy poll where the option that won did so by only one vote. Even more so if only 3 people actually voted! :lol:

Edit: "Measure Expiry Date" could be any in game event that is certain to happen, ie: when something is built, when a certain agreement expires, when we reach a specific game turn, etc...

by the way, Shaitan: consider yourself signed up! :D

Please sign me up as well.

Bill
...in PDX

I wish to join

Eklektikos - I like the initial proposal you posted this morning, but I think #3 should be changed to read "Proposal of all options discussed in the discussion thread are to be posted in the same discussion thread 24 hours before opening the poll. Options discussed after the proposal is posted will go on the next proposal/poll.

This will eliminate last minute, undiscussed options and options taken from other threads (unseen perhaps by the readers) from being entered into the current proposal/poll. If someone would like to link another discussion thread to the discussion thread creating the poll, that discussion should be linked and discussed before the proposal includes these options.

I apologize for not having any specific proposals but I think we must take into consideration that there are different reasons for conducting polls and so all polls should not be held to the same 'rules'.

Some polls are strictly procedural, like those for renaming a city at the start of a governor's term. Some polls are posted by department leaders to feel out the citizens' general views, and the FA country ranking polls exemplify these. Then there are polls for specific proposals, like the worker proposal poll posted by Chieftess. then there are rule change polls. Should these all be lumped together under one standard?

Ok, in response to Cyc's post I'm taking item 3 off the list since it evidently needs further discussion.

Originally posted by donsig
I apologize for not having any specific proposals but I think we must take into consideration that there are different reasons for conducting polls and so all polls should not be held to the same 'rules'.

Some polls are strictly procedural, like those for renaming a city at the start of a governor's term. Some polls are posted by department leaders to feel out the citizens' general views, and the FA country ranking polls exemplify these. Then there are polls for specific proposals, like the worker proposal poll posted by Chieftess. then there are rule change polls. Should these all be lumped together under one standard?
This is a good point, but I think that a well constructed set of universal standards could encompass all of these polls and make it unnecessary to pigeonhole each poll into a certain classification before knowing what rules apply to it.

Undiscussed polls posted to feel out the general views of the populace could easily be dealt with since they're the kind of poll that should be non-binding. If we formally adopted universal standards, it would simply be stipulated that any poll not conforming to those standards is in no way binding. This would suit the nature of such polls

"Specific proposals" are always discussed before the poll is posted and since the options are just to accept or reject, the proposal becomes the poll option which would therefore have been up for discussion for the required time. These polls should also easily fit within the bounds set by the other standards, IMO

I don't see "Rule Change" polls as needing a diferent set of polling standards to gameplay polls.

Admittedly the "governor renaming city" kind of poll is more problematic, but I'm sure they could fit in too... it's just that at 2:20am my brain can't work out how! :rolleyes:

I wrote that last piece not to have #3 taken out, but to discuss re-wording it. I generally like #3, but think it could include more with little effort.

Mainly when I speak of poll procedures, I'm speaking of binding polls being validated for official use. I'm not really worried if Homie feels we should be at war, or if Lumpy wants to rename a city. Those polls are really only of any signifigance to that person or group. When a poll affects the nation as a whole, and needs validation as a binding poll, then poll procedures come into play.

I also do not object to quick polls for temporary measures, but they should follow some kind of format to allow validation for use in the turn chat.

I'm very glad this thread is here and don't mean to downplay any issue or short any ideas. On the contrary, I wish to spark more discussions and examination of those ideas.

to the poll-naming:
we should not use "infomational poll" though, as the "poll:" will automaticall be added and it will read "poll: informational poll: xxx", which sound a bit ... strange ...
i would propose:
"official" and "informational". they will then read: "poll: official: xxx" and "poll: informational : xxx"

maybe also a third and fourth: "rules official" and "rules informational" for rule changes. i believe the interest-levels on both issues (game decisions and rules decisions) are different, so maybe it would help ppl to distinguish between them.

also i would propose informational polls not to be sticky (is this a good idea? brought it here from somewhere else)

Originally posted by Cyc
I wrote that last piece not to have #3 taken out, but to discuss re-wording it. I generally like #3, but think it could include more with little effort.

Mainly when I speak of poll procedures, I'm speaking of binding polls being validated for official use. I'm not really worried if Homie feels we should be at war, or if Lumpy wants to rename a city. Those polls are really only of any signifigance to that person or group. When a poll affects the nation as a whole, and needs validation as a binding poll, then poll procedures come into play.

I also do not object to quick polls for temporary measures, but they should follow some kind of format to allow validation for use in the turn chat.

I'm very glad this thread is here and don't mean to downplay any issue or short any ideas. On the contrary, I wish to spark more discussions and examination of those ideas.
Item 3 is being taken out because its wording needs further discussion - the list is just for those standards which have taken on an agreed fixed form, at least for the time being. I'm certainly not dropping it, just allowing other people time to add their comments and suggestions in response to your rewording. :)

Originally posted by disorganizer
to the poll-naming:
we should not use "infomational poll" though, as the "poll:" will automaticall be added and it will read "poll: informational poll: xxx", which sound a bit ... strange ...
i would propose:
"official" and "informational". they will then read: "poll: official: xxx" and "poll: informational : xxx"

maybe also a third and fourth: "rules official" and "rules informational" for rule changes. i believe the interest-levels on both issues (game decisions and rules decisions) are different, so maybe it would help ppl to distinguish between them.

also i would propose informational polls not to be sticky (is this a good idea? brought it here from somewhere else)
Dis, I'm hoping that the eventual adoption of a set of standards will make such naming conventions unnecessary. Put simply: if someone wants a poll to be binding they follow the standards - and if not then they can do whatever they like, and their poll will be informational by default.

Until that time,however, it does make sense to use naming conventions as a temporary measure to reduce confusion. Might I suggest replacing "Official:" with "Decision:", and "Informational:" with "Opinion:"? I don't know that we need a separate variation for rules, since the title of the post should make it obvious what the poll is about anyway. Plus "Rules Informational:" would take up waaaaaay too much space in the title field!

As I see it, there are 3 types of polls. A full poll, which does everything the right way. A quick poll, which does either a very specific thing or a temporary thing. An informational poll. Things like the governor and FA ratings polls would fall under the quick poll rules. Here's what I've got from the new Constitution (taking the original rules, adding what we've worked on here and adding quick poll rules).


Point 1 A poll is not valid unless a quorum of participation has been reached.
a Council Votes quorum is 5 participants.
b Citizen Polls quorum is 23 participants. (Simple majority of 45
respondents to the Term 3 Presidential election).
Point 2 All polls should have the following information:
a Poll type in the header and first post.
b Poll start and end dates/times in the first post.
(1) Minimum poll duration should be 24 hours or longer.
c Link to relevant discussion threads in the first post.
d Inclusion of an "Abstain" option.
Point 3 Council Votes - If there was not already a citizen poll identical to
the Council Vote, the leader who posts the Council Vote must also post
it as a Citizen Poll. This is to give as much response time as possible
to the citizens for determination of their proxy votes.
Point 4 Official polls should proceed as follows:
a Discussion thread, up for 24 hours minimum. Then,
b Proposed poll, up for 24 hours minimum. Then,
c Poll posted with link from discussion thread.
Point 5 Quick polls
a When topic discussion is unwarranted or poll procedures cannot be
maintained due to time constraints, a quick poll may be used. Quick
polls do not have to follow the time conditions noted above.
b Results may be used to make temporary changes or specific, one time
decisions. They may not be used to make permanent article, law or
standards changes.
(1) The specific action item must be noted, or;
(2) A specific expiration of the change authorized by the poll should
be noted. This should not be longer than the next turn chat.
Point 6 Information polls do not have restrictions and cannot be used to justify
policy, plans or actions.
Point 7 All polls posted by Leaders are considered Official unless specifically
noted to be informational in the header and first post.

Shaitan,

Do you think that we could make this easier (and avoid the need to change the constitution every month) if we simply said:

"Point 1 - B: Citizen Polls quorum is based upon receiving a total number of responsive votes equal to half plus one of all votes cast in the most recent Presidental election."

We would want to add wording that someone, such as the President or a Moderator, would post what that number is for all citizen votes during their term.

Bill

Oops. I did up the census rules and neglected to update the polls to match. Looking at poll returns compared to the election returns, using the Presidential election as a barometer is a poor choice. I've added a regular census of active citizens instead. That's neither here nor there (actually, it's "there"). The poll part is what's important. Here's how the first section should read:

Point 1 A poll is not valid unless a quorum of participation has been reached.
a Council Votes quorum is 4 participants.
b Official Polls quorum is 1/2 of the citizen census.
c Quick Polls quorum is 1/3 of the citizen census.

Out of curiousity, and your approach might well be better, but what did you find in your comparison?

Average poll returns for a 48 hour poll hovered just slightly over 50% of the presidential election returns level. Using 50% of the presidenital returns as the quorum level would require every poll to achieve what's essentially 100% turnout in order to be validated.

My idea of a census is to poll for participating citizens with a format similar to this:

A- I generally vote in the everyday polls.
B- I do not usually vote in the everyday polls.

Returns for choice A become the census of active citizens.

we could maybe use a new forum feature: as i understood TF, the mods can now see who voted (not what, but who). so we maybe would get an image which citizens are active and which are not from our polls.
we could use common knowledge levels for the quorum, as we see how many polls are invalid. we, for example, now know that 15 citizens seem to be possible for citizen polls.
if this tends to decline most polls, we can always change it.
we just have to make sure the change of this does not get invalid from the quorum ;-) deadlock, you know?
the other thing is that we dont have abstain in most polls, so most ppl who want to abstain can only do one thing: not vote. so the vote-count is not showing how many ppl looked at the vote and did not vote because they wanted to abstain.
if you look thru the polls, the ones with abstain have much higher participation (if they are sticky and so not drawn down the line to page 999).

btw: putting a poll for this would ppbly not work because ppl may change mind in between polls.

48 hour polls get decent participation, as long as they aren't over a weekend. In that case, I'd recommend polls going for 72 hours so it hits a Friday or Monday. Advertising helps immensely. Posting a link to an official poll in the related department thread and in the related discussion thread helps people find the poll to vote on it.

Although I do not actually want to sit on this commission, I would like to say that I do not like the "Polls" sub-forum. Polls posted in the citizens forum seem to have a much higher voting rate. For the first few days that this sub-forum existed, I thought it was still the general info subforum. I don't know if people are missing it, or if those without high speed internet access just do not have the patience to switch forums.

While I do agree with Eyrei that polls are probably getting lower turnout, since I myself rarely enter the polls subforum (to my shame), I think we should leave it alone for a little while. People may start bothering to go in there once they find decisions are being made without their input. If poll participation doesn't improve within the next couple of weeks then of course we should definitely look at moving the polls back to somehwere more visible. That's my two cents/groats/whatever

Here is something I tried posting last night but TF was installing a new feature. The discussion has proceeded since I tried interjecting this but here it is anyway:

What you say makes sense Eklektikos. I guess I'm still a bit fuzzy on what a 'binding' poll is. 'Binding' as in "it is an impeachable offense not to follow"? Where are we on who can post polls? I realize that it is not up to this commission to define binding or who can post polls, but it is difficult to set standards unless we know these two things.

For the record, I am against adding rules about polls to constitution. These are standards or regulations or maybe even laws but they are certainly not constitutional principles. I guess I must go catch up on the constitution splitting discussion. (Not quite as much fun as playing the GOTM.)

hehe. i thought about posting:
"oh no! we will start the 3books versus constitution thing again!" after the post, but i resisted ;-)

Donsig - These would be standards. If it became necessary, they could be made into laws. Definitely not an article of the Constitution.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Donsig - These would be standards. If it became necessary, they could be made into laws. Definitely not an article of the Constitution.

I made a post in the splitting the constitution thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=317925#post317925) that is about standards. I think the remarks I made there are relevant to this discussion.

I definitely agree with both of you on that point. There is a big difference between the two.

I posted the following as a reply in the constitution splitting thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=23978) but it is also about poll standards and I think it's gets a little closer to what I'm trying to say:

If a poll is not valid does that mean we cannot follow the results of the poll? I see many problems with invalidating polls. If the government implements a policy measure that happened to be approved by a poll that was not valid then impeachment charges could possibly be brought against the government officials in question. A poll that does not live up to our standards may well still accurately depict popular opinion.
I think the best we can do with polling procedures is to allow government officials to justify their actions if they have a valid poll that backs the actions.

we will have to differentiate this:
there are really binding standard to make sure polls show public opinion: duration, discussion beforehand, abstain, quorum etc.
and formal standards.
the formal standars can not invalidate polls imho.
the others will, and so the poll does not show the public opinion

Donsig, I've posted an answer to your question in the Constitution splitting thread in that thread (use Donsig's link). Validity is not a major issue here. At least not yet. It's strictly for official use. I don't believe it's more than (in this strange little analogy) whether a vehicle stopped at a stop sign or not. Was it a valid stop? If it was, no problem. If it wasn't, is there a problem? Maybe, but probably not. There still needs to be a law somewhere that says a vehicle must stop at stop signs, or why have the stop signs there?

i continue this discussion in here because i think it fits better to the name of the thread and remove clutter from the other one.

i think validation of polls is needed to see if they comply to citizen opinion. lets say we would have a poll with only 8 votes, which was up for only 24hours. this would definitely be an invalid poll, as it was a) too short and b) not enough citizens voted.
if the results of this poll would be used, this is not public opinion. if an important question (lets say going to war for example) would be covered by this, the poll is not to be used. if the action is definitely forced to be part of the next chat and the player in charge does notice the poll-result is a must for the chat and that it is invalid, the player MUST cancel the chat (or stop it if already running) and go back to forum with a new poll.
if it is only a minor issue, or if an older poll will still be in place, the player could also just ignore the poll (we must act with invalid polls as they would never have taken place, as they represent false information).
i do not think a formal error should render a poll invalid, though. we should identify the things redering a poll invalid and other things which render a poll "formal errorous", which should cause a warning letter to the poster and if repeated maybe can lead to inquiry and punishment.

I do not think we should be forced to cancel or stop a turn chat because someone has posted a poll that is not valid. That would render spot votes during turn chat to be useless. There are times when a decision is needed and the turn chat can't be stopped. If another country tries to extort something from us and our refusal may mean war, we cannot stop and save the game without making the decision! It will have to fall to the desiganted player and those at the turn chat to decide unless there is a valid poll covering extortion in general or specifically from the country in question.
I am still wary of what disorganizer is proposing but maybe I'm over-reacting when he says a non-valid "poll is not to be used." I agree that such a poll can ot be used to defend an action but I think it should not be used to prosecute or otherwise investigate an action taken, whether the action follows the non-valid poll or not. I also do not think that non-valid polls should stop or slow the play of the game.

There, Donsig. I agree with you. I keep answering your first posting of these questions in the Constitutional splitting thread as that's the first one I come too. Please stop posting up there about polling issues. Post here.

I believe what you said in your last post to be true. We shouldn't be stopping the turnchat everytime someone gets a little gas. This is actual play time and with the President or VP there, major decisions are not a cause for alarm. A Deputy or Governor may decide to halt the game in a tough situation (if possible), but this has to do with other issues than polling.

If you carefully read the proposal, the term "stop if possible" will be in there. So no point to you, donsig.
I still see that mayor discussion should be made by citizenry, not by the government.
As you can see in the appropriate thread about why our citizens leave, you will find this as the major minus of our game. Citizens leave because they see no sense in watching 6 ppl play a game.
(well, i also dont, btw).
We could the rename the game to "representative civ3-game" and hold elections every month but close the forum to citizens. The result will be the same.

I don't see your point, Dis. Maybe I need another cup of coffee. And how does it relate to polling?

cyc: you should also tell donsig that, as he also talks about the chat. this is highly related to each other. and what do we need validation of polls for if they are not used? where are they used? so you see chat and poll regulation highly interface with each other.

btw:
nobody wanted to touch the spot-votes with invalidity of forum polls. and as i said, a invalid poll does DEFINITELY NOT show the opinion of the ppl.
if poll results of such a poll or a leader decission (well, maybe even a chat spot-vote) will be used, the opinion of citizenry is not implemented. it may happen citizency thinks different. if it is not possible to stop the chat at this moment (like with gfs map-demand problem), then its ok, but the chat should be stopped directly after. Any other case WILL give us opportunity to go to forum for polls (see civ2-game, i think this works almost the same way? just less interactive in playout though).

THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT:
is to make proposals to the public and get the public opinion of the citizency.
nothing else. not playing their own fassion. even if this is bad for "the game" (i think gf had this problem one time in the chat: they had to do things they knew were wrong, but public opinion was there).

Disorganizer, the point I was trying to make is two fold. First, many times important decisions must be made without having recourse to valid polls. Second, if we halt the turn chat every time we need a valid poll for a decision we will be lucky to get two turns a week played.

Cyc, I am sorry for posting in both threads but polling standards and how we split the constitution are inter-twined.

So how does the civ2-game work then?
Maybe more planning beforehand will then be needed.
What would we have to decide which we cant know beforehand?

Originally posted by disorganizer
and as i said, a invalid poll does DEFINITELY NOT show the opinion of the ppl.

...

THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT:
is to make proposals to the public and get the public opinion of the citizency.
nothing else. not playing their own fassion. even if this is bad for "the game" (i think gf had this problem one time in the chat: they had to do things they knew were wrong, but public opinion was there).

It is my understanding that the standards we are endeavoring to formulate are to be put into place to ensure that a valid poll does indeed reflect the *will of the people*. That is all well and good but it does not follow that polls that do not live up to our standards do not reflect the *will of the people*. Some non-valid polls will be a proper gauge of citizen sentiment but others will not. Again, I must ask disorganizer what he means by 'not using' a non-valid poll. If he means "stop the game until we get a valid poll" then I disagree whole-heartedly. If he means non-valid polls can neither be used to defend nor prosecute a governmentl official's action then I agree.

As for the job of the government there are two school's of thought. 1) Formulate policy and then seek citizen approval or 2) Seek the wishes of the people and then formulate policy based on that. It seems to me that if we want a democarcy game we should be following the second school of thought.

i did not talk about a policy. you should read more carefull.
i talked about proposals, and thats ALL a department should do. work out a proposal (if the citizens arent doing allready) and then PROPOSE it. If accepted by citizenry (dont forget many vote, but dont post), this could be a POLICY for the department or a INSTRUCTION for the turn-chat.
The proposal shoukd, of course, be based on citizenry-discussion. I wonder how this game worked in the last 3 months though, as the rules are so "bad".
Maybe we should just go back to DOFs original rules ;-)

Originally posted by disorganizer
So how does the civ2-game work then?
Maybe more planning beforehand will then be needed.
What would we have to decide which we cant know beforehand?

I'm not sure how the Civ 2 game works but IIRC, didn't Mr. Spice say they had only ten active players? If so, then what we are trying to do is totally different since we want as many active citizens as possible.

Yes, I agree we need more planning but we should allow our officials to use their judgement when our plans don't cover events.

In not-mayor decisions, this will be allowed though. We could define the events WHEN a chat has to return. This should be strictly binding, and not only war.

Which events could you imagine not to be handled beforehand?

Your proposal will just lead to more invesitgations or if not to more dissatisfaction of citizenry, as leader will have to decide without any idea what citizenry really wants.

Exactly, Dis. I believe the Civ2 game is less Democratic than this one. And it's for a country smaller than Conneticut. So, to me, it's irrelevent. As far as the handling of or planning for unseen events, I believe I addressed that in post #47. Let the Prez or VP make a decision or two. I believe the general consensus is (at this point in time) if it's WAR then stop the game, which sounds good to me. But that's a very Major decision.

And thanks for clearing up that other issue too. I didn't say you were wrong, I said I didn't understand.

Thats why i cleared it up ;-)
But what events could not be managed beforehand (again this question ;-) ), except popups at the beginning of the turn?
Maybe trade, but this wont be a major issue.
Maybe science, but this is plannable.
Maybe war, but we should stop then.

It's not necessarily a question of what can or can't be managed beforehand. It's more a question of what IS managed beforehand. If a trade deal expires and there are no instructions what to do with that deal, should the game be stopped? Heck no! The Trade Rep makes a decision or the DP makes a decision, or a spot poll is taken.

"Not using a valid poll": An invalid poll wouldn't be usable for enacting legislation or changing a decision based on a valid poll. It could definitely be used as an indicator of public opinion on a topic and help to formulate a decision that is validated in another manner. This depends on the individual circumstances though. A poll that gets 15 votes and needs 16 to be valid should carry a lot more weight than one that got 5.

well, if we difine regulations, they will be there to be used. so if we define 16 votes to validate a poll then 15 is NOT enough. so this poll is not representing public opinion.

to you trade-thing: so why wasnt this planned beforehand? thats a problem of the trade-department then to calculate trading option. and as this is a popup-event, it can be decided in the chat and verified on the forum afterwards.

I think we're on the same page, just reading different paragraphs.

Take this example: An important trade deal is up this turn. Trade put a poll up but it is one vote shy of validation at the time of the turn chat. So, there is no official instruction on what to do. Should the turn chat be stopped when the trade deal has to be dealt with? Should the DP make a decision based on the invalid poll? Should there be a spot poll? What if the invalid poll was 12 yes votes and 3 no votes? What if it was 8 yes and 7 no?

My take is that if the invalid poll was overwhelmingly for the deal, the DP should make the deal. If it was marginal then a spot poll should be taken. In neither case would the game be stopped.

The only thing I can think of that should force the turn chat to stop is a declaration of war.

Regarding the trade example with a non-valid (one vote shy) poll. In a case such as this wouldn't the trade dept. be able to make the decision on whether or not to make this trade and post proper instructions? The poll could not be used as evidence to defend (or attack) the decision.

Yes, the Constitution stated that from the beginning. If there is low participation or forum outage, the Department Leader has the authority to make arbitrary decisions. Missing the quorum defines low participation for a poll.

For the example, though, there was no instruction. Say that the leader left instructions to do what the poll said, or something like that. The DP is there with only an invalid poll and the chat crew to back him up.

OK, can I ask for a quick summary of the last page and a half from each of you? And maybve what Eklektikos thinks. It looks to me like we're getting close to defining the parameters of validation, but that may be wishful thinking.

Cyc, we're getting close but may be hung up on how valuable an invalid poll is. I think that under certain circumstances it can give a valuable indication of the will of the people. The problem is that will almost always be a judgement call. :(

The nitty gritty is that an invalid poll should not be able to be used to criticize a leader's decisions. Similarly, it should not be able to be used to validate a leader's decisions. (It could be used to guide a decision though?)

If a poll fails to meet the quorum, it is a case of low participation under the Constitution. That means the leader can make an arbitrary decision.

Shaitan pretty much summed up the point we have reached. I have not looked at any specific standards myself as I was still trying to get a handle on the validation and binding. We've covered validation/non-validation. What is a binding poll? What is a non-binding poll? The former must be followed or the official risks impeachment? The latter can be ignored?

Yes, binding polls must be followed by officials or they face investigation and possible repurcussions. Here's the combos:

Valid/Binding - Do it or suffer the consequences!
Valid/Non-binding - A successful info poll! Use this to develop future policies or to simply enjoy the knowledge you have gained.
Invalid/Binding - It's invalid. At best it might be informational.
Invalid/Non-binding - Same thing as above. It's invalid and can't be used to justify actions, etc.

and whats the problem with judgement-calls and investigations? if the player did it right, he wont be voted guilty (you know, donsig;-) )

so the deal would be the following:
lets assume there was a invalid poll, but overwhelmingly for the trade-deal (to stay with the example)...
lets say 14 yes, 1 no, 16 would be needed to make it valid
the trade leader posted a instruction to follow the poll (this point is important! we have to educate our officials to do much more instruction posting! it can not be that the chat-attendees have to go thru the forum to search for instructions. if the poll would be valid and the instruction not posted by the leader of the concerned department, this would bring the leader of the department to jurisdiction, not the player)

now back to topic:
if the player follows the poll (its HIS decision!) or even takes one more spot-poll in chat (should be citizen poll though), then he may be subject to investigation (if any citizen would care). even if one cared and brought the point up and the discussion is opened, and even if one is against till the guilty-poll, then this poll will go in favour of the player if he did the right thing.
call it a post-validation ;-)
a good example was, i think, shaitans investigation (#1) where he brought himself up for investigation.

Very cool. Looks like we're getting somewhere.

To me a binding poll is one drawn up by the President, a Leader, or the (possibly) new Judiciary members. This poll will change part of your Phoenatican world. It is binding to allow the poll writer to make a new standard, law, or amendment according to the content of the poll. Actually for a Law or Ammendment it would have to go through a council vote, but a binding poll would get it to that point. The actions caused by the binding polls could effect procedures on turn chats, polls, investigations, or any major point in the game that could deal with a citizen. So we need to pay close attention to binding polls. If a binding poll turns out to be valid in all aspects, a change will be made, or an action will be taken. If a binding poll is invalid, then like Shaitan said, informational.
Should a leader use a valid poll to make a decision? Only if he is seeking re-election. If a Leader continually ignores valid polls, he sets himself up for impeachment.
Should a Leader use an invalid poll to make a decision? Who cares. Why would you admit to using information from a worthless poll. You can still do it, and if the poll was mostly approved by the people, you can say you did it for the people, not the poll.

I have nothing against judgement calls Dis! :)

OK, now can I ask here if we can let citizens post polls and anythig? I will be bringing this issue up in the "C" discussions after I print out a new version.

If we do end up allowing citizens unlimited polling rights will that effect how we write polling standards?

Take that to the "C" discussion as I've already loosened the restrictions a bit (to fit in with the 3 part rule format).

I read the rework of the "C" version 1.1 and feel the definitions of valid and invalid polls needs to be changed.

Originally posted by Cyc
I read the rework of the "C" version 1.1 and feel the definitions of valid and invalid polls needs to be changed. Any specific suggestions? Is it the verbage or did I miss the point?

We have both addressed this in the "splitting the 'C'" thread. Funny thing is, maybe we should have addressed it in this thread... oh well.

We should urgently merge discussion on this issue. Shaitan: as you write the document, could you make a thread with a first post containing the up-to-date version of it? (or a link)
forum-attachment maybe is better because some have problems downloading files from the fileserver ;-)
also post links to both discussion threads in there, so we can channelize the discussions.
a title could maybe be (as catchy as possible! we need many readers and contributers!):
"new constitution! pre-reading here!" or something like that. after that we the other threads unstickied and the one you started stickied.

Originally posted by disorganizer
We should urgently merge discussion on this issue. Shaitan: as you write the document, could you make a thread with a first post containing the up-to-date version of it? (or a link)
forum-attachment maybe is better because some have problems downloading files from the fileserver ;-)
also post links to both discussion threads in there, so we can channelize the discussions.
a title could maybe be (as catchy as possible! we need many readers and contributers!):
"new constitution! pre-reading here!" or something like that. after that we the other threads unstickied and the one you started stickied.
Sorry, a family emergency has come up and I'm about to high-tail it out the door. I doubt that I will be back on the forum before Monday. Here is the latest update. (http://www.civfanatics.net/uploads/ConstitutionCv1-2.zip)

cyc: sorry, now a copy of my post in here:
having citizens starting info-polls is also a good way of getting new and fresh ideas into politics. this is what our rl-governments have problems with, and why they really dont like the internet.
we have more possibilities electronically than normal polling in rl.
we could get a benefit from it, if we get it organized right.

another idea for the polls:
we could try to force icon-marking. lets say:
the exclamation mark sign (like in this post)
for ALL official polls and discussion threads
the question mark sign
all informational polls must have this sign.
list sign (the first in the list)
all official informational threads have this sign (like newspaper, history, census)
bulb sign
all citizen group-threads must have this sign.
other threads
can have any sign they like, but must NOT have any of the above mentioned.

violators wil be prosecuted!
EDIT:
by mod mail and mod action to change the icon

Does this citizen group still exist? Since im comiling all the citizen group for the tourism association i need to know weather to add it or omit it from the records.

thx
Phoenatica Tourism Assoc.

Yes, it still exists. It should be a functioning group (no matter how active) as long as there are polls.

Welcome to Almightyjosh, whom I'm drafting due to his evident desire to address the issue of polling.

I have written up a short guide to 'how to post a poll'. It is something that has not quite been covered in these discussions and is more for citizen help then for law!
How to Construct and Analyse a Poll 101 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29694)

I would add that the standard set out in the COS that you all worked so hard on are not being followed and are in fact not known by the majority of citizens!! We need to educate the people!!

Thats why I think we need to educate people. I suggest that for the next game there be another three sticky threads in the poll sub-forum (total of four with registry).
1. We should have one thread reserved for members of the polling standards commission to set out the guidelines required for a poll. These should not be a cut & paste from the COS, but an easy to understand set of guidelines with examples. We could also include tips on how to run a poll, how to structure it and what sort of options to give (like what I was attempting with polling 101). This thread would NOT be for discussions.
2. We should have the polling standards commission thread, and it's debates, as a sticky thread in the polls sub-forum. This would be the main thread for proposing and discussing how to structure polling and what rules to use (much the same as the PSC has always been)
3. We need a thread reserved for help. Sure, we have the newbies shed, but not all people that might require advice will be newbies and this thread would be specific to the area of polling, which is VERY hard to get right, as we have seen.

This would mean that (apart from polls) there would be four threads, all sticky, in the poll sub-forum:
1. The Registry - for Poll advertising
2. The Commission - for Poll regulations discussions
3. Polling 101 - for rules, guidelines, tips and examples of how to set up a valid and usefull poll
4. The Help Line - where PSC members answer questions on how to poll well

This would mean better polls and better democracy.

Looks good, except for the polling commission. That should be in the Citizen forum.

I think the "Polling 101" thread is definitely a good idea and that that should be made sticky in the poll forum. I'm not in favour of stickying the PCS thread anywhere, since it's a citizen group/discussion thread and I think such threads should be indexed rather than stuck. If there's active discussion of polling it'll float back to the top, if there's not then it'll make room for the more pressing issues of the day. Perhaps just add a link it in the "polling 101" thread. The PCS thread could also double as the polling help thread since questions can often spark debate that would belong here, and it would reduce forum clutter.

Right, Eklektikos. My reply was too spartan. I meant in the Citizen forum as a citizen group (as it is currently).

I'd like to join.

AJ - could 3 and 4 be combined? Maybe even 2 with that?

I would also prefer 1 thread with all info in it ;-)

Another thing:

Did the poll commission notice we have no real rules for poll-design?

All what is in the ruleset is in "should" format.
We dont even have to comply to anything except the quorum on info polls. And on almost nothing except quorum for binding polls.

Just to get you thinking... ;-)

Thread moved to G2 forum per founder's request.

Merci beaucoup, monsieur Shaitan! :D

Originally posted by Eklektikos
Merci beaucoup, monsieur Shaitan! :D

Hey!!!

We are a German nation here! Don't forget that we normally like to interact with our French friends in a different way... :ar15:

Vielen Dank ehrenwert Eklektikos.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX


Hey!!!

We are a German nation here! Don't forget that we normally like to interact with our French friends in a different way... :ar15:

Vielen Dank ehrenwert Eklektikos.

Hey!!!

We're actually *not* a German nation, we're Fantikans, ur Fanatikites, um. Fanatiki....

Hmm.

I think during wartime polls shouldn't be used because then decisions take too long and nothing would be done and emergency powers given to the goverment so they can act quickly to preseverve our civilization

Very good, boris7. You picked the right thread to post this in and you picked an excellent, timely topic. It's a topic that's difficult to address. I'm sure there's a legal answer that covers the subject, but off hand, I would say that the quick poll was designed to better allow us to move forward in times when speed is required, such as war. Even quick polls have their limitations. These safegaurds were put in place to prevent issues from being "railroaded" through. That's what makes the situation difficult. The safegaurds were put in place to protect you, but in doing so, they also restrict you. In order to get these "safegaurds" changed or removed, you would have to draw up a lengthy proposal and run a very convincing discussion. Good luck.

Thankyou, I but I'll have to take some time to prepare for this so for now the quick polls will have to do