Quorum this term is going to be difficult.

Okay. now, what to do about the quorum? we are NEVER going to get a single poll passed. I can guarentee this. Any people who have only registered and voted (for Shaitan, presumably :P) are most likely not comming back. So, we are going to have a high quorum (if we even have Quorum in the new books) and no ability to pass it. I urge the judiciary, whoever they may be, to take this into consideration before creating our quorum.

SaaM
FA Minister

We don't have a quroum right now, as we don't have laws. Vote 54 just came in.

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
Okay. now, what to do about the quorum? we are NEVER going to get a single poll passed. I can guarentee this. Any people who have only registered and voted (for Shaitan, presumably :P) are most likely not comming back. So, we are going to have a high quorum (if we even have Quorum in the new books) and no ability to pass it. I urge the judiciary, whoever they may be, to take this into consideration before creating our quorum.

SaaM
FA Minister
If you had taken the most cursory glance at our current ruleset, you would have seen that the word quorum is not mentioned once. The problem that we will have to face will not be meeting a high quorum requirement, but ensuring poll legitimacy without that benchmark.

Originally posted by bootstoots
We don't have a quroum right now, as we don't have laws. Vote 54 just came in.

You know, he has a point. The Judiciary can just make the quorum that they feel is appropriate.

Originally posted by Noldodan


You know, he has a point. The Judiciary can just make the quorum that they feel is appropriate.
I don't believe that that is the case. Without a legal mandate to impose a quorum, the Judiciary should not and do not have that power.

Originally posted by Eklektikos
I don't believe that that is the case. Without a legal mandate to impose a quorum, the Judiciary should not and do not have that power.

Well, seeing as how we have no legal mandate for anything, everything we do is suspect. So the only person who has any power is the President, and the elections we are having possess no legal mandate, rendering them moot. But of course, they AREN'T moot, so we can assume that we are using the DG2 rules for polling and elections. Of course, you may disagree.

I believe that the plan was to use the dg2 rules for the elections, yes - however I do not recall anything regarding day to day polling.
I would also point out that the Judiciary posts are the only positions excepting the presidency to have their roles laid out explicitly. Roles which do not at present appear to include responsibility for anything regarding polling.

We need new rules ASAP

Octavian already has plans in the works for tacking on a few more sections to the constitution.... :eek:

Honestly, this deserve some discussion outside the election thread. :p

BTW, there is something which is effectively a quorum. Though the word isn't used, it's described very well by Article F of the Constituion.

BTW: New discussion here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51991)

it does indeed... perhaps a kindly moderator would care to split the relevant posts off into a seperate thread for the purpose... :D

This is a spawn discussion inspired by a threadjack of the Presidential election at the mention of the word 'quorum.'

Well, how do we want to determine how polls work? We need some minimal regulation to ensure that polls are are not abused, like having a one-vote poll count.

I would propose a simple system - Let the Judiciary, by itself, set the standards for polls (ex. min time open, quorum, etc), wih those standards easily viewable.

Other thoughts for viable options?

how about we use a little bit of common sense with a dash of self control when making polls.

Originally posted by Immortal
how about we use a little bit of common sense with a dash of self control when making polls.
Throw in a smidge of respect and a healthy dose of promoting the will of the people and this is a recipe for success. For far more than polling.

In short, unless people start intentionally and obviously abusing the rest of the players through unfair polls then there's no real reason to regulate them.

sounds delicious shaitan, Ill have a bowl.

Posts split from the Presidential Election thread.

ooo... for a second there I thought you guys were talking about a Science Que... hehe

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
Okay. now, what to do about the quorum? we are NEVER going to get a single poll passed. I can guarentee this. Any people who have only registered and voted (for Shaitan, presumably :P) are most likely not comming back. So, we are going to have a high quorum (if we even have Quorum in the new books) and no ability to pass it. I urge the judiciary, whoever they may be, to take this into consideration before creating our quorum.

SaaM
FA Minister

First of all, polls never did have to reach quorum in order to be used. A poll had to meet quorum (and other tests) in order to be valid and binding. While valid and binding polls had to be followed valid and non-binding polls could still be followed. Binding polls are really only needed to ensure recalcitrant officials follow the will of the people (as expressed by a valid binding poll). Each and every poll does not have to be valid and binding in order to be useful in determining what the citizens want.

Secondly, the Judiciary has no constitutional power to create quorums or any other law. Only the Congress (the citizens) can create new laws.

I suggest that we use the simple guideline that at least 15 people have to vote on a poll before a leader should use it to make decisions based on the will of the citizens. If a leader violates this guideline more than once, then we should reassess, and possibly look into legislation, but only if it really is necessary.

Originally posted by eyrei
I suggest that we use the simple guideline that at least 15 people have to vote on a poll before a leader should use it to make decisions based on the will of the citizens. If a leader violates this guideline more than once, then we should reassess, and possibly look into legislation, but only if it really is necessary. I

I like that idea, but would also require a reasonable time limit that the poll be open- say 48 hours as an example.

Originally posted by Cpt Kaos
I

I like that idea, but would also require a reasonable time limit that the poll be open- say 48 hours as an example.

The problem is, this is not always possible. There are usually only a few days between turn chats, and many topics require significant discussion before being polled.

There are always trade-offs, which is why hard and fast poll requirements often bit us in the arse in previous demogames. What ended up happening a lot of the time was that the Leaders used their judgement and informational polls when making decisions (when there was insufficient time to meet all of the legal requirements).

Which in turn meant that the legislation became effectively redundant for all purposes except beating people over the head and political point-scoring. I think that the informal guideline proposed by Eyrei, combined with a second informal guideline that we should not hold more than two full blown turnchat/play sessions per week, should hopefully help to prevent many (or even any) extreme cases of last minute low participation polling from occuring.

Informal guidlines :lol: read : new laws.

I think we should make a new law that says we can't make any new laws, and then make another law that says that we can't change any of the new laws, so some one doesn't end up making any new laws....

Laws keep the game on track and keep the citizens from whining all the time. We know this as fact. We need laws. Every discussion thus far has danced around that fact, and camoflauge the word, but the end result is we need some kind of direction laid out to consistantly follow.

Wait a minute, what am I saying? As one of the first members of "The Will to Power", to hell with laws. Let's just do whatever it takes to get the job done. Sorry.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of these things being nothing more than informal conventions. In other words: recommending that citizens approach the activity in this way, but leaving them free to do it differently if they so wish. The catch being that if they try to abuse this freedom they will be risking the wrath of the electorate and thus their continued tenure in office, as well as much grief during the remainder of their present term in office.

Personally I suspect that we will eventually end up with some kind of legislation regarding polling, but I think it would be interesting (and educational for those who haven't experienced demogaming sans polling standards) to at least find out if we can work without them this time.

More importantly it wasn't following the rules that were important, it was whether the polling was done in an intelligent and fair manner. Go look at all of the polls posted after we finally got correct and widely acceptable polling standards in place during DG2. Unless I posted or corrected a poll I doubt you will find one that actually obeyed all of the polling standards. About the only thing the standards were really used for was to object to polls that people didn't like. That can happen just as effectively without enacting legislation that will be essentially ignored.

Wouldn't it be nice to have a citizen's organization devoted to the betterment of our polling process? A place where citizens could discuss what makes a poll good or bad and why. A place that would educate both poll writers and voters about polls. Perhaps such an organization could develope a list of unofficial standards. The group could also give its seal of approval to polls deemed worthy or otherwise rate polls in an effort to increase the general quality of our polls.

Hmmm...that's a neat idea. Rate the polls. A citizen watchdog group that independently gives a rating (maybe 1-10) for each poll posted judging objectively against basic criteria and subjectively for fairness (bias) and quality of options? It would give excellent feedback on a citizen to citizen basis, impartially and without the overhead of legislation. Following a critique (or in it) could be recommendations to increase that poll's rating.

I like that idea.

A new incarnation of the Polling Standards Commission? Now there's a thought... :mischief:

Yeah. One with participation. :)

That's an even better thought :lol:

Unless Donsig wishes to do so himself, I'll have a thread up for it later today :D

Originally posted by Eklektikos
That's an even better thought :lol:

Unless Donsig wishes to do so himself, I'll have a thread up for it later today :D

I'm trying to remain an impartial member of the judiciary so I don't want to initiate any citizens groups. Feel free to start it up EK! :)