This option decides how technology research (NOT technology trades, which will be under faction control) will be handled, by either Core Rule rights, Faction Platform as an election contract posted prior to the election or that technology can be decided on freely by the Faction.

Four Choices:

1. Everyone should be part of the research decision vote by Core Rule Rights
2. Faction Platform posted prior to Faction election should decide
3. Faction should decide freely after the election
4. I don't care

This is a public two-day poll.

Simple plurality wins, and there is a two-day run-off if there is a tie.

Options 2 and 3 should be added together for voting purposes when comparing to option 1.

Explanation:
This poll unfairly splits the vote of those who want tech to be in the faction's hands. If option 2 plus option 3 exceeds option 1, then it is clear that more people want the faction to choose than want direct voting.

I agree to the above, and there will be a poll between options 2 and 3 right afterwards if factions win. (I just want to get the arbitrary nature of "Faction decides" out in the open, so people know what they vote for in clarity).

That was easier than expected. ;) If one option gets a clear majority, then of course no runoff would be needed, right?

True, if "Binding Election Platform" for example win with a clear margin, then the "Faction decides" does not need a repoll. I would say a 50 % lead more than the other Faction option is a good signal enough.

I am sorry I am tough on the rules here, but as soon the Faction ship sails, the core rule chance is gone, and we need to live with it.

As we haven't started the game yet, and each additional term will bring its own uncertainties, I'm in favor of not binding factions to the tech parts of their platforms they run unless stipulated elsewhere in their faction ruleset (particularly later with Representation and U. Suffrage civics). Allowing the factions to be flexible in this regard will reduce unforeseen complications in gameplay, and perhaps translate in-game opportunities into roleplay opportunities.

The State (and therefore the Faction in charge) should have the authority to encourage or condemn certain lines of research. For example, if we found one religion, the State may not want the heresy of founding another.

As we haven't started the game yet, and each additional term will bring its own uncertainties, I'm in favor of not binding factions to the tech parts of their platforms they run unless stipulated elsewhere in their faction ruleset (particularly later with Representation and U. Suffrage civics). Allowing the factions to be flexible in this regard will reduce unforeseen complications in gameplay, and perhaps translate in-game opportunities into roleplay opportunities.

The State (and therefore the Faction in charge) should have the authority to encourage or condemn certain lines of research. For example, if we found one religion, the State may not want the heresy of founding another.

The flipside of this is that, technology is the only means for the opposition to impact change passively, besides resorting to the very drastic rebellion. Technology would also be a way to influence society without being in government. The State should potentially cover all other activities and assets but this one, but allow this to be a security vent for societal change and so on.

Galileo Galilei, Da Vinci and other great scientists did invent their thing not because of state support, but in spite of it. General technology polls emulates this much better than Faction-based decision.

The problem that I see here is the potential for abuse from the population at large against the Prime faction which should really be relegated to actual rebellions instead of voting tech choice by spite. Eventually it could lead to sabotage of the game and the Faction System as a whole.

The problem that I see here is the potential for abuse from the population at large against the Prime faction which should really be relegated to actual rebellions instead of voting tech choice by spite. Eventually it could lead to sabotage of the game and the Faction System as a whole.

This is, ultimately, why I voted option 3.

Faction. Up to the Faction on how they do it as well.

-- Ravensfire

Anyway, it is good we got this polled, so people see that some people want to have proper Faction Platforms and that some people says the Faction should decide it all upon winning the election (non-binding platforms).

Back in the day, we used to post a discussion thread first, so people could inform themselves on the issue first, before they had to vote...

Back in the day, we used to post a discussion thread first, so people could inform themselves on the issue first, before they had to vote...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=266603

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=266603

Back in the day, people posting polls used to post a LINK to the discussion in the initial post out of courtesy to fellow citizens who would like to inform themselves about the topic.

That doesn't happen with far too many polls now.

-- Ravensfire