The purpose of this group is to attempt to ensure that polling within our nation is carried out to the highest possible standard.

This will be achieved via the formulation of a set of standards which we can agree that all good polls should adhere to in terms of both design & content, then subsequent review and rating of all posted polls based on these standards - giving pointers on how to improve any weak aspects of said polls. All citizens are welcome to join the commission and propose new standards or ammendments to existing standards, as well as contributing to the discussion of others' proposals.

Agreed Standards:

Mandatory Standards for Fairness Poll question should be posed in an unbiased manner
Poll options should be unbiased and easy to understand
Running time should be stated in first post of poll
external Discussion thread relevant to the poll should have been up for at least 24 hours, and the discussion within brought to a conclusion prior to the posting of the poll.
Draft poll proposal should be posted and discussed prior to the posting of the poll
Poll should be linked to in the Poll Registry
Poll should be linked to in relevant discussion thread
First Post If there is a participation requirement, it should be stated in the first post of the poll and there should be an abstain option
First post of poll should contain link to relevant discussion thread
Procedure for Poll Reviews:
If a poll fails to meet the mandatory criteria, it shall be deemed unfair
If the poll meets only the mandatory criteria, it shall be deemed fair
If the poll fulfils some of the additional standards standards (1-3) it shall be deemed fair and satisfactory
If the poll fulfils most of the additional standards (4-6, it shall be deemed fair and good
Membership:

Almightyjosh
Bacon King
Bootstoots
CivGeneral
Cpt Kaos
Donovan Zoi
Donsig
Eklektikos (founder)
Fier Canadien
Peri
Shaitan
Stuck_As_a_Mac
Watergate

I'll join this citizen group. Once we have standards, I think we should have an official poll to adopt them officially in the demogame.

First items on the agenda are the creation of an initial set of standards, deciding how to organise poll reviews and the manner in which ratings should be assigned.

I'll start off with a few suggestions for standards:
Polls should specify in the first post a participation requirement that must be achieved before the poll is considered decisive. This should not be set lower than x votes.
Polls should specify in the first post an appoximate duration in terms of hours.
Polls should include an "abstain" option.
The purpose of the poll should be clearly set out in the first post, with elaborations on the options when "yes, no or abstain" format has not been used.

Originally posted by bootstoots
I'll join this citizen group. Once we have standards, I think we should have an official poll to adopt them officially in the demogame.
Welcome, bootstoots :goodjob:

If by adopting them officially you mean including them in the actual demogame rules, I disagree. I think we would do better to encourage people to adhere to our standards by demonstrating the problems caused by weak polls via the review process, rather than attempt to legally compel them to do so. We tried the stick approach in the last game and it proved flawed, so now I recommend that we see if we can get further using the carrot.

Those are fine standards, EK. I would add that polls should be written in as unbiased a format as possible.

I think one of the most beneficial ideas I've seen regarding polling is writing up a proposed poll and posting it in the appropriate discussion thread prior to actually posting it as a poll. This gives citizens, especially those who feel they have a vested interest in the issue to be polled, a chance to make suggestions regarding poll format. By giving everyone a hand in forming the poll there is less chance that someone will try to shoot down the poll results by shooting down the poll itself.

Yes, that's another good one. It's often a victim of time pressures for in-game related things but should definitely be encouraged whenever possible. Especially things like law proposals, borders, etc, that are not time sensitive should have this step.

I'd like to join this group, as I believe that intensive polling is the key to a seamless integration of the game in a community.

I agree that posting a discussion thread before polling is a key factor, and that's why I want to make it the COP official protocol as you can see in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52186).

I would like to join too please. Excellent ideas there btw Ek.


Originally posted by Eklektikos
I'll start off with a few suggestions for standards:
[list] Polls should specify in the first post a participation requirement that must be achieved before the poll is considered decisive. This should not be set lower than x votes.
list]

However I have concerns about this part. I dont like the idea of a minimum vote requirement. If it is deliberatley set so low that we know it will be met then it becomes unneccessary. However if it is set higher so that there is a chance it wont be met then and it is not met then we lose the benefit of the poll and those who did bother wasted their time. I am very much in favour of letting those who show up make the decisions. As I have said before it is up to everyone to vote and if they dont then they have no cause for complaint if they don't like the outcome.
Some may argue that how can a poll be binding if only 2 people voted in it. Well it is incredibly unlikely that we will have a turnout that low but if we did then those 2 people should not be penalized because they made the effort. I cant stress enough that it is the responsibility all the citizen to participate in polling.

Also I strongly reccomend that we keep this only as an advisory body and keep our reccomendations out of the rules. We need the rules to be as few as necessary.

Instead of a minimum participation requirement, an advertising and time standard would be better. If a poll is linked in the poll registry and is then open for an acceptable amount of time the participation in the poll should be good. Make sure that people are advised of the poll's existence and let participation happen as it may.

Originally posted by Shaitan
Instead of a minimum participation requirement, an advertising and time standard would be better. If a poll is linked in the poll registry and is then open for an acceptable amount of time the participation in the poll should be good. Make sure that people are advised of the poll's existence and let participation happen as it may.

Yes I think that is a better way to go. By advertising the poll and its duration it removes the need for a minimum voting requirement. The length of time should be as long as is practical and not uniform throughout the game.

I would like to sign up for this Group :).

I would like to join to

I will join this group as well.

In addition to posting a link in the Poll registry, we should also consider posting one in the accompanying Discussion thread. This is another way that those following the discussion can be informed of a new poll. Also, advertising in your signature could be encouraged, but not necessarily a standard.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
[

In addition to posting a link in the Poll registry, we should also consider posting one in the accompanying Discussion thread. This is another way that those following the discussion can be informed of a new poll. Also, advertising in your signature could be encouraged, but not necessarily a standard. [/B]


Definitely not a standard as some signatures are already using a lot of links.:crazyeye: just don't want the announcements getting lost

We should have a 48-hour minimum time limit for polls, but no quorum, IMHO.

The polls are vital. So the importance of this group can't be overestimated. I'd like to join and give my support.

Using the items presented so far we have a list of 10 points. If our impartial commission grades each poll we can easily rate them accordingly:
External
1 Discussion thread up for 24+ hours and discussion complete
1 Proposed poll posted and discussed
1 Poll is linked in Poll Registry
1 Poll is linked in discussion thread

Poll
1 Impartial Question
1 Impartial and easy to understand choices
1 Abstain Option is present

First Post
1 Participation requirement is stated
1 Running time is stated
1 Link to discussion thread is present

A score of 9 or 10 would be endorsed as a well structured and fair poll. 6 to 8 would be marginal. We would censure any poll that rated 5 or less.

Thoughts?

EDIT: Perhaps weight some of these? Impartiality seems more important to me than mechanics such as stating the running time or minimum acceptable participation requirement.
What happens when we censure a poll? Recommend that citizens abstain?

Woohoo! My Debate Poll got 10/10! :D

I don't think I would weigh any of the criteria here, but I would probably raise the bar for censure to 7/10. I can't see any adequate poll that leaves off five of these items, regardless of combination.

Regarding impartiality, we can empower anyone from the PSC(that's us....) to issue a warning for this offense, just so it is on record. If it is determined that a poll's lack of bias has encouraged a certain outcome, the PSC members can vote to overturn, or re-poll.

I think some weighting is needed. A poll with a biased question or skewed options can still rank 9 out of 10 and be a rotten poll. Including an abstain option is not all that important if there are no set quorums or standard participation levels. A 24 hours discussion thread is not always needed either (nor is it always possible). Some of our best ideas and discussions actually happen in poll threads, especially information polls. Perhaps there should be a simple approval / non-approval on the key issue of impartiality and then for those polls that are approved a rating (such as 3 out of 8 or 7 out of 8 could be given).
We have to realize that *impartial* and *easy to understand choices* are more subjective than objective. That is enough reason in and of itself seperate these criteria from the rest. Any ideas how the commission would go about determining impartiality?

To refine my polling abilities (and boy... do they need it) I will join this group

That's a clear table of assessment. It ocurred to me about weighting but then I read your edit properly. Personally I believe that the following should be weighted and regarded as mandatory for a 'good poll':

Discussion thread up for 24+ hours and discussion complete.
Impartial and easy to understand choices.
Running time is stated.

Reasons:
No one can question the validity by saying there was not enough time to discuss the matter, or the choices were manipulative and confusing, or we thought we could vote later.
To clarify - In real political elections plenty of time is given before polling day. The public know how long they have to vote and the choices are simple. I believe these are the key tests for a valid poll.

Although the other standards are important I dont believe that a 'failure to meet' on one or two is critical.

Linking standards make the poll more accessible but it is the responsibility of the citizen to read the relevant threads.
I also dont believe that a minimum participation level is necessary. As I have said before it is up to each citizen to vote in the polls.
People can abstain by not voting.
If the question is subjective and then people can vote against or author a new poll.

Wow!
I've been away so long I didn't even know we had a new demogame!!!
I'm gonna join this citizen group before any other, so there.

To get down to it...
I think the main problem in polls is how they are written and interpreted in terms of options. The main problem is that people split the options on one side or the other and it comes out skewed. Like:
Should we build more cities?
-No
-Yes, 1 more
-Yes, 2 more

clearly both the second and thrid option support the building of atleast one extra city, but the problem is that many people try and count them independantly and it's stupid. More on this phenomenon later.

PS Hello everyone

He has returned!!
You will be pleased to know that you bear the name of the last victorious GL producing elite unit in DG2. You showed up to open the Seven Doors of Theebes to the Fanatikan Panzers.

suggestion for the ongoing vote about how to name our nation (and possible future votes with a similar structure):

With so many choices you have to vote, there should be two votes. First vote with all choices. them second vote with only those three or four (there has to be decided how many exactly) with the most votes in poll one.

There hasnt been a tremendous ammount of feed back on the the proposals put forward by Shaitan or the ammendments which followed. Therefore I think we should have a manual poll to vote in these standards with a secondary poll on the proposed ammendments/suggestions.
We cant move forward as a group until this is done.
Eklektikos would you be kind enough to set this up please.

I like donsig's idea of taking out the subjective portions (fair, unbiased) from the point system and making that a pass/fail criteria. The physical poll elements would then be the rating of a fair poll.

As requested by Peri, I'll set up a poll for acceptance of the 10 proposed standards collated in Shaitan's earlier post.

Here's the planned first post, to allow you to make sure I've not missed anything out ;)

Do you wish to accept the following as official Polling Commission standards?


External Discussion thread relevant to the poll should have been up for at least 24 hours, and the discussion within brought to a conclusion prior to the posting of the poll.
Draft poll proposal should be posted and discussed prior to the posting of the poll
Poll should be linked to in the Poll Registry
Poll should be linked to in relevant discussion thread
Poll Poll question should be posed in an unbiased manner
Poll options should be unbiased and easy to understand
Poll should contain an "Abstain" option
First Post Participation requirement should be stated in first post of poll
Running time should be stated in first post of poll
First post of poll should contain link to relevant discussion thread
Please post a vote of "Yes", "No" or "Abstain" in answer to the above question. Votes by non-members of the Polling Standards Committee will not be counted.

This poll will run until either "Yes" or "No" votes constitute an unbeatable majority, or until a maximum running time of 48 hours has been reached.
If there are no objections I will post this tomorrow morning.

Brilliant. :goodjob:
Then on the assumption that we adopt those standards we need to look carefully at weighting and rating and defining impartiality.

I'd like to join.
I agree with Peri. Brilliant.

I like it because its elegant in its simplicity.

I've now posted the proposed standards acceptance poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=52912). All members should go vote in it ASAP :goodjob:

I've been mulling over the idea of impartiality and how it is qualified for a few days without much success.
No one has spoken against the idea that the fulfilment of these 2 concepts should be compulsory which is encouraging.
Perhaps we could consider defining impartiality with regards to the question along the lines of ...
The question will only be considered objective and impartial if its framing does not pre dispose voters to a particular option.
and options as....
The options will only be considered objective and impartial if the ...(got stuck here)

Please make suggestions and comments

Some poll questions are easier to deal with than others when it comes to deciding if they are impartial or not and whether the options are impartial or not. The question, Should we waste our time and energy in a vain attempt to build the Great Wall? along with the options no and abstain is obviously not impartial on both counts. But how about the question How many offensive military units should we have? with the options 1, 2, alot, abstain? The question seems reasonable but the options aren't since zero is not included. Also, how do we determine a fair breakdown of the options in such a poll. Perhaps we should step back and look at the different kinds of polls questions there can be and decide if slightly different standards are needed for each. Since we can also now have multi-choice polls perhaps they should be handled a bit differently.

There will always be room for error when judging subjective criteria and donsig has a good point that some will be easier to judge than others. However, as the determination of the impartiality and fairness of a poll and poll options will always be subjective we are going to have to deal with those items subjectively. As to how will we decide whether impartiality is reached, about all we can do is give it our best effort.

Remember that this group will not be making polls valid or invalid. We're simply offering a service to the pollsters and voters. We will be giving authoritative feedback and approval (or censure) as appropriate, based on the elements we decide upon here. We are the Underwriters of the polling world.

That said, let's look into the basic polling types as donsig suggests:

Y/N/A - The basic poll. It has a question with Yes, No and (usually) Abstain options.

Plurality Choice - Pick your favorite from a list. The one that gets the most votes wins. Elections are this type of poll. Many option decisions are done in this style as well and this is okay so long as the options are limited. The more options there are, the greater the danger that a significant portion of the populace does not support the plurality winner. For long lists an approval poll should be used first to wean the choices.

Approval poll (multi-choice) - The best bet for long lists of options. Voters select all options that they approve. This type of poll is best used to filter a field of contenders down to a manageable number that can be posted in a Plurality Choice poll.

Those are the big 3. Any others?

I think we need to make so that there are no quorums but all polls should have a 48-hour closing time minimum.

Quite often there isn't time for a 48 hour poll and very often (especially when a poll is advertised correctly) there is a more than sufficient level of participation in 24 hours. I wouldn't want a hard and fast criteria of how long a poll has to be up but I definitely want to see how long it will be up.

The only other poll type that comes to mind is the Manual Poll, like the one we are using to adopt our standards. Granted, this won't come up as much, but should still be considered.

That said, I am off to peruse the Constitution to see if there is any mention of the Council Vote. This would be another example of a Manual Poll.

The proposed list of 10 standards has now been accepted by open ballot of our membership and has therefore taken its place in the first post of this thread.

Great! Now let's get the nitty gritty worked out.

As noted previously we have 2 qualifications. The first (and, IMHO, more important) is fair polling. That means that the poll question and response options need to be impartial, clear and appropriate, and inclusive. The second is the adherence to poll elements. I'll comment on the second first.

I believe that we should use a point off system instead of a point accumulation system. That is, take off a point (or number of points depending on if we weight things) when items are missed. If more than a certain number of points are lost then the poll is censured. The reason for this is there is not always a need for all of the elements. If there is no minimum requirement for the poll then there is no absolute need for an abstain option. If we used point accumulation then just about every poll that didn't have a minimum requirement would lose two (or more) points when they are actually are correct just because they lack those elements.

For the first category, I suggest definitions of:
Impartial - No obvious bias or slant in the way the poll question or responses are written.
Clear - Easy to understand. No double negatives, etc.
Appropriate - The correct poll type is used. No plurality choice to determine a winner among 10 contenders.
Inclusive - Options that were proposed in discussion are included in the poll.

I would just like to add that I believe that the stating of the poll's running time should be added to the 'fair poll' category. This is because otherwise the author of the poll can close it as soon as the desired result is achieved.

Originally posted by Shaitan
That said, let's look into the basic polling types:

Y/N/A - The basic poll. It has a question with Yes, No and (usually) Abstain options.

Plurality Choice - Pick your favorite from a list. The one that gets the most votes wins. Elections are this type of poll. Many option decisions are done in this style as well and this is okay so long as the options are limited. The more options there are, the greater the danger that a significant portion of the populace does not support the plurality winner. For long lists an approval poll should be used first to wean the choices.

Approval poll (multi-choice) - The best bet for long lists of options. Voters select all options that they approve. This type of poll is best used to filter a field of contenders down to a manageable number that can be posted in a Plurality Choice poll.


I would add that we need some standards when assessing the result of any of these polls:

Y/N/A - If a majority of votes cast, excluding abstentions, are cast in favour, then the motion is passed. Otherwise, the motion is lost.
Possibly: All tied motions are lost (when phrased in the affirmative)
(NB: In some cases, such as ratification of consitutional amendments by the Senate, the requirement is different. This may be a higer propotion of no-abstain votes required to pass the motion or the requirement that yes votes outweigh both no votes and abstentions)

Approval poll (multi-choice) - The 'winners' are selected by one of two means:
a) By being in a the top x number of choices in terms of votes cast in favour, where x is a predetermined number.
b) By achieving x percentage of positive votes cast where x is a predetermined percentage.
Possibly: In these polls I think the value of x should be displayed in the first pot.
(NB: It is very difficult to determine when quorum has been reached, a set running time is more appropriate.)

ADDITIONAL:
Multichoice only really works in two circumstances (that I can think of):
a) To cut down a massive list into a managable one (like when picking nation name or tech importance) and can then be polled non-multichoice
b) When there are a lot of options ALL of which are mutually possible (like setting up embassies in different countries). In this case people can choose as many as they like, because they can all be done without infringing on any other. Most of the time any one option will require more than 50% of voters to approve it for it to pass.

More to come...

Plurality Choice - Pick your favorite from a list. This is the type of poll most often screwed up. As I can see, polls from this category fall into three distinct groups, this is complicated, but if we could get it right our polling would be sooo much better.

a) Choosing from distinct options
This is something like an election, when all the mutually exclusive and unrelated (should Bill, Mary or Sam be president, should we be a Monarchy, Republic or Despotism). In this case, the option recieving the highest number of yes votes wins, regardless of the total number of votes cast, very simple.

b) Choosing from distinct groups of related options
This is essentially when you are asked to make more than one choice and vote for a best option (eg Should we Buy Monarchy? Yes, with wines. Yes, with money. No, reseach it. No, steal it. ) In the example here, two choices say yes, two say no, but in different ways.
The main problem here is that people assume one option must beat all the others outright, this is not true. Consider:

How should get Monarchy?
Buy it, with wines. 5 votes
Buy it, with money. 4 votes
Reseach it. 6 votes
Steal it. 1 vote
Not at all 1 vote

It seems that we should go ahead and research Monarchy, but this is not the case. In fact, more people wished that we buy Monarchy, they just dissagreed on how to go about it. In this case, we should group the two 'Buy it' options together when counting, and (if they win as a group) determine which of that group has won.

This is the way to deal with such polls when they are already taken, but in most circumstances the problem can be avoided by running multiple polls (this is called forshadowed motions by the way) where a general question is asked and then, depending on the result, a more specific question. So ask:

Should get Monarchy?
Yes
No

then:
How should get Monarchy?
Buy it
Reseach it
Steal it

then:
With what should we buy it?
etc.

It would be rare for a question to require more than two or three polls and a definitive answer can be reached.

In addition, this allows people more real say. For instance, if in the original combined motion I vote 'Not at all' and that option looses, I have had NO say in how we go about getting Monarchy, see?

c) Choosing one from a gradated list
In this case we choose from a number of options calling for a similar action, but to varying degrees. In this case we must find what I call the 'point of balance' to determine the winning option. For instance:

How should we deal with the Greeks?
More War
Ceasefire
Peace
ROP
ROP and MPP

These are gradated from one extreme to the other. It is NOT the case that the option recieveing the most Yes votes automatically wins. Take this example:

How should we deal with the Greeks?
More War 1 vote (civgeneral)
Ceasefire no votes
Peace 7 votes
ROP 6 votes
MPP 3 votes

Rather than looking straight at what option has the most, we look at which 'side' has the majority and at what point that majority ends. We MUST have a ceasefire to have peace, and we must have a ceasefire and peace to have an ROP, etc.

Therefore, all the people who voted for Ceasfire, Peace, ROP or MPP would support a ceasfire AT LEAST! Thus more people support a ceasefire that support continued war.

In the same way, those that support peace (voted peace, ROP and MPP) outwiegh those who voted no peace (ceasfire and war).

AND, although peace is the highest individual score, more people voted for an ROP (ROP and MPP) than voted for no ROP (peace, ceasfire and war).

HOWEVER, less people support a MPP (MPP voters only) than support no MPP (ROP, Peace, ceasfire and war votes all combined).


Yay! Wasn't that all so simple.
Any questions?

Looks good to me. ;)

The graduated polls were used to determine how much modding to do (percentage increase) for artillery and aircraft bombardment increase for this game.

let me join :D

Excellent posts AJ. I would only add that for your examples b and c under Plurality Choice these would be much better off as multi-choice approval polls. Perhaps we should have a standard that goes something like: Proper poll form used? Under Shaitan's proposed point deduction system there'd be something knocked off if a plurality poll was used when an approval poll should have been used. Of course to include sucha standard we need an object *rule* to go by. I love the idea of looking at the options according to whether they are mutually exclusive, graduated or related options. Perhaps the first can be plurality or approval while the others should always be approval? Or should the number of options determine when approval should be used in place of plurality polls?

/Me stands and claps
Bravo, AJ, Bravo.
I agree with it perhaps being a multi-choice.

Originally posted by donsig
I would only add that for your examples b and c under Plurality Choice these would be much better off as multi-choice approval polls.

This is initialy what I thought, except it also has some serious problems! For a start, it further complicates the issue as not everyone realises they are to vote for ALL the options (but some people will) so it is very difficult to get an accurate reading.

When you actually need to choose between options, even when some are related or they are gradated, a non-multichoice can be used, it just has to be well written and thought out.

Multichoice only really works in two circumstances (that I can think of):
a) To cut down a massive list into a managable one (like when picking nation name or tech importance)
b) When there are a lot of options ALL of which are mutually possible (like setting up embassies in different countries)

lookie, I scared everyone off

@AJ - Compile those into a text file and that's an excellent primer for good polling.

AJ, would it also be possible to summarise it into an idiots guide to choosing the right type of poll.

Also what is happening with the discussion on weighting and scoring?
We should put the ideas we have on this to a vote of the PSC

I would like to join this valuable citizens group

While we sit around discussing things polls are being posted. Isn't is about time we start our approval / rating service?

I agree. We really need to get this polled so that we can get it up and working...

Members of the PSC,

Please lend your ideas and expertise to the drafting of the following polls. I would like to make sure the new debate structure is in place for the upcoming elections. Thank you for your time.

Debate Polls: Final (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=990206#post990206)

Greetings Psc ers,

Firstly, may I recommend to you AJ's definitive guide to choosing a poll. here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=53858)

However to more pressing matters. There has been no further discussion on scoring and weighting and how we judge the polls.

We have adopted a set of standards which is a great start.
I wish to propose a few things for consideration and adoption and would appreciate some feedback before I submit them for a vote.

A.
I propose that we remove the following from the main body of standards and classify these as standards which must be achieved before the poll can be judged as 'good' for the reasons stated in the discussion thread.

1). Poll question should be posed in an unbiased manner
2). Poll options should be unbiased and easy to understand
3). Running time should be stated in first post of poll

B.
I also propose that the standards:
Participation requirement should be stated in first post of poll.
Poll should contain an "Abstain" option

are reworded for the reasons argued in the discussion thread to:

If there is a participation requirement, it should be stated in the first post of the poll and there should be an abstain option.

C.
I propose that we should use Shaitan’s ‘points off system’ to score the polls for the reasons he stated.
Rating of poll.
If a poll fails to meet the mandatory criteria, it shall be deemed unfair.
If the poll meets only the mandatory criteria, it shall be deemed fair.
If the poll fulfils some of the additional standards standards (1-3) it shall be deemed fair and good
If the poll fulfils most of the additional standards (4-6, it shall be deemed fair and of a high standard.

That looks good to me, Peri.

Peri's proposals seem productive and I support them. Without being a wet blanket I'd like to ask how judgement would be made on points 1 and 2 of section A of Peri's proposal. DO we appoint an actual commissioner or commissioners who would judge each poll? Do we poll the PSC members? Perhaps we should practice on some polls that are already closed?

Rating those elements is by necessity a subjective exercise and the people rating them will have to use a combination of common sense and intuitiveness.

I'd say elect some commissioners from within the Commission. Maybe put up a multi-choice poll with the member list and anybody with over 50% approval is allowed to judge polls for the Commission? Such people would need to use restraint in certain cases (i.e. not rating their own polls or a poll they are closely involved in).

The advantage to having a good number of people able to rate polls is that polls will be rated pretty quickly. This could give a pollster a chance to quickly correct elements or nix the poll if it rates too low.

The idea of a body of elected commissioners seems the most logical way to proceed.
Perhaps we can have a new thread in the polls forum entitled Poll Assessment or similar. The commissioners could post their assessments in this thread rather than here to make them more accessible. As long as the assessment is full and explanantory there should be no need for a discussion on it. After all we are only here to provide a service to pollsters.
I also believe that once our fine tuning is done we should move the List of Standards to the main forum as a sticky alongside AJ's guide so people can see what is required from a poll. The more information we provide, the less remedial work we will need to do.

Regarding election. Although I prefer Shaitan's secret ballot, I dont see how we could stop not PSC members from voting. How about if a manual poll is constructed where the members are invited to list 10 or less from the number to act as commissioners and the 5 with the most votes are elected. The person who polls the most votes could be responsible for ensuring that each closed poll receives an assessment.

I'm not sure that we'd want to prevent the citizenry at large from voting. After all, the weight of the Commissioners' decisions will be stronger if they have overall support of the community.

I think the poll assessments need to go directly in the polls, not in a separate thread. The more visible they are, the better their effect will be.

Yes, I see exactly where you are coming from. The more popular support we have the better. However having the assessments in a separate sticky in the polls thread would allow people to view all assessments without clicking on each poll. It would save people time and the title would attract people's attention to view the assessment even if they werent particulary interested in the poll itself. At the end of each closed poll we could link to the assessment thread to catch people both ways.
As a thought (although i fear this will be a can of worms)why not open up the election to anyone who wants to stand for a commissioner role and the who receive the most votes get the job.The positives would be greater participation from those who want to be more involved but have not had the opportunity.
The negatives would be another elected post and all the admin that involves.

So keep the write-ups separate and just post the final verdict in the poll? With cross references, of course.

Maybe advertise the Commission itself a bit to make sure that anybody who is interested in our mission knows about us but keep our candidate pool to our member list. If this was made an official elected position then it would move out from this group's influence. As the people who've joined here are the ones who vocally support fair polling practices, this is where that influence belongs.

I agree with you there.So if anyone who wants to stand for election for a commissioner, he has to join the group first so that it retains its influence.
Also if we publicise ourselves and our mission first, then we avoid accusations of operating a 'closed shop'.

I've started advertising. ;)

Sounds good.
btw, if you refer to section 1 of the definative guide to polling, you will note that the best type of poll to use for this election (assuming non-manual) is a multichoice poll. I think that rather than basing the results on who has above 50% support, we should decide the results baced on who recieves the highest approval, regardless of percentage. That means that firstly, we end up with a defined number of commissioners elect and secondly it removes any trouble of a 'low cohort' or 'high cohort' where almost all standing score below or above 50% and we end up with either a very small commission or a very large one.

This is also explained in the DGP Sec 2.2

:)

I would like to join this group and will serve on the commission if chosen. There should be a specified number of commissioners, with the top n vote getters in a multichoice poll being chosen.

I recommend that each commissioner be empowered to render an independent opinion on any given poll, to facilitate a quick response if an obviously bad poll appears. For more borderline cases, the commissioners should exchange their analysis of the poll in this thread or via PM, and render a group decision. As a check and balance to one member acting alone, if one of us makes a mistake, the others can point it out and the opinion can be corrected.

I suggest we run this election as soon as possible, before the close of nominations for the general elections.

IMHO, the poll should be run thus:

All members of the PSC, who nominate within the next 24h for the Commission 'board' will have their nomination accepted.

If greater than five in number, a poll will be held between these members. This shall be a multichoice poll. Those 5 who recieve the highest number of votes, regardless of the percentage of total votes that that number represents, shall be elected to the board.

First Post:

This is the poll for the election of the members of the Board of the Polling Standards Commission (PSC). The duties of these members are to oversee the polling of issues both by leaders and the general citizenry on all issues. The powers of the board are in all ways informal and discretionary and carry no weigh in law. In making recommendations, both general and specific, members of the Board are to look for direction in the documents and discussions of the Polling Standards Commission.

The Board shall consist of five members, all of whom are members of the PSC. In this election, those 5 who recieve the highest number of votes, regardless of the percentage of total votes that that number represents, shall be elected to the board. The member recieveing the highest number of votes shall be charged with the establishment and maitainence of all relevant threads, but has no additional powers.

This is a multichoice poll, so you may show your approval of one or more candidates (or abstain). As there is no quorum requirement, there is no point in voting for every nominee, though you are free to do so. It would be appropriate to show approval for 5 nominees, though this is not a binding condition of voting.

Voting is open to ALL fanatican citizens.
There is no quorum requirement.
This poll will remain open for 3 days.

<link to PSC and disscussion here>

End first Post

If there is any dissent to this, please flag it. Otherwise I suggest we open nominations as of NOW. In 24 hours, when nominations close a poll should be posted by someone NOT running. Oh, and lets try not to get caught up in too much buerocracy, fun as it is!


OK, I'm gonna get the ball rolling by nominating for the board.

I would like to nominate Bootstoots and Donsig for this.

Also, I shall be drawing to a close on Monday, the discussion on ammendments to our Standards and putting them to the vote.

Perhaps a mod could make a special 'announcement' thread to advertise this election so that anyone not currently a member of the PSC has the opportunity to join it and stand for the board.

I would add that any nominations not confirmed will be considered denied...

I would also nominate Peri as he seems to have neglected to do so :)

Thankyou AJ. I would be delighted to accept.:)

I'll accept the nomination. Thanks Peri!

I nominate Eklektikos and Almightyjosh. :)

Please come and vote in the poll for refining our standards and setting up a poll rating system here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=54308)

I accept.

OK,
So far:

Almightyjosh
Peri
Donsig
bootstoots
EDIT: plus d8575 makes 5!

Have nominated. I suggest that if no-one else nominates soon, then we put it to a vote. Mind you, I think four is not enough, and it is an even number. We should wait till it gets to 5, then poll to see who looks after the tread. I would ask that, once we have a fifth nominee, we could put it to a vote as soon as possible.

Shaitan, if you don't intend to nominate, could you please post the poll to elimate as much bias as possible.

My previous post was intended to mean that I nominate myself and accept. :)

This nominating yourself as a means of volunteering is a little strange to me. I've held elected posts in RL and am not used to doing it this way, but it seems necessary since it's not as straightforward to meet someone over coffee and get them to throw your hat in the ring. ;)

Ah! My mistake, I missed the post where you nominated, thats good, now we have 5. I propose that these five constitute the Board of the PSC, but that we poll for two reasons:
a) It increases awareness that there is a new Board to oversee polling issues.
b) To determine who's responsibility it is to start and look after any threads!

@Shaitan, as the most active member of the PSC not running, could you please post this poll as soon as possible.

@d8, we have always held that one is allowed, even encouraged, to self nominate. It means you can run even if no-one knows you want to!

We have 5 spots and 5 people so exactly what do we need to poll here? Awareness would be better increased by an announcement. An approval poll for the top 5 out of 5 is just confusing. I say congratulations to the volunteers and get to work. ;)

I have made an announcement but since you yourself have missed it, it hasn’t worked very well. Perhaps you could give it an announcement flag so more people will see it.

Alternatively we could, as you say, just get on with it. If we go with the latter then may I propose that Josh heads the board and is responsible for allocating to the members, polls for rating.

For the purposes of simple admin, may I suggest that the head of the board should operate the Assessment Thread (which should be stickied) and that the members pm their assessments to him for inclusion. There should also be a link at the end of each poll thread to the relevant evaluation in the Assessment Thread. The link should be posted by the poll’s assessor.

Might I suggest this as a pro forma

The poll entitled <name> has been assessed and rated as <unfair/fair/fair and satisfactory/fair and good> by the Board of the Polling Standards Commission.
The Board and the Commission exists to evaluate polls and advise pollsters to ensure fair polling and an accurate means of determining the will of the people.

The poll <fulfilled/failed to meet> the three criteria for fairness which are

Poll question should be posed in an unbiased manner
Poll options should be unbiased and easy to understand
Running time should be stated in first post of poll

The poll met <number> of the criteria by which the quality of the poll is judged.
These were <name the criteria which the poll met>

The full list of Standards and Method of Assessment that the Board of the Polling Standards Commission uses can be found <link>

General Comments
<comments>

An announcement has been posted.

@AJ - Go ahead and start up the thread for poll review tracking in the Poll forum and I'll stick it.

Hi Committee members,

See this poll discussion constitutional amendment poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=1012906#post1012906) for an issue which needs our attention.

This post is in reference to the recent poll conducted on accepting ammendments to our Standards which can be found here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1014022#post1014022)

Would Eklektikos please be kind enough to ammend the Standards according to the following.


Agreed Standards:


Mandatory standards for fairness

Poll question should be posed in an unbiased manner

Poll options should be unbiased and easy to understand

Running time should be stated in first post of poll


External

Discussion thread relevant to the poll should have been up for at least 24 hours, and the discussion within brought to a conclusion prior to the posting of the poll.

Draft poll proposal should be posted and discussed prior to the posting of the poll

Poll should be linked to in the Poll Registry

Poll should be linked to in relevant discussion thread


First Post

If there is a participation requirement, it should be stated in the first post of the poll and there should be an abstain option.

First post of poll should contain link to relevant discussion thread

Procedure for Poll Reviews:

If a poll fails to meet the mandatory criteria, it shall be deemed unfair.
If the poll meets only the mandatory criteria, it shall be deemed fair.
If the poll fulfils some of the additional standards standards (1-3) it shall be deemed fair and satisfactory
If the poll fulfils most of the additional standards (4-6, it shall be deemed fair and good.

Standards and procedures updated as per Peri's post.

Much appreciated :)

What do we do with an unfair poll? Perhaps we should get something passed where unfair polls become informational only.

A Question, How does one become a member of the PSC Board. I am asking since I am interested in becomming one :).

If there are already enough people in the PSC Board. I would like to be the Aide to one of the Members to the PSC Board, Pleas elet me know if this is possible to be an Aide to one of them.

Thanks,
CivGeneral

You can be my aide, CG.

Originally posted by bootstoots
You can be my aide, CG.

Thanks Boots :). Hopefully this wil help me get my foot in the door in the PSC Board.

I can't help but notice that after a fairly enthusiastic start last month, our review board do not appear to be doing much in the way of reviewing. Could we see some action please, either in terms of poll reviews or the election of new and more dedicated reviewers.

Sorry, I am in the middle of exams and have been spending any free time writing up porvincial borders, I'll start getting on people's backs...

*ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS*

The board of the PSC would like some direction on an issue with regards to assessing polls. The issue is the 'abstain' option. While the criteria written by Peri and adoped by the PSC (which are, I will add, on the whole very good) call for the abstain option only in some (might I say) limited circumstances, it has been past convention and (I believe) the intention of theis group to have the 'abstain' option as mandatory for all polls to recieve a grading of 'fair' or better.

It is my personal opinion that the 'abstain' option should be required for all polls, even those without a strict quorum. I have been treating the assesments with this view in mind, other board members have taken a different stance. We would like this cleared up quickly so we can continue assessing polls.

I dont have a personal opinion on this myself. However a speedy resolution would enable us to clear our mounting backlog. :)

As far as I'm concerned, the PSC board has not succeeded. There have been no poll reviews after the first two hours of the existance of the board thread, and as an inactive PSC board member, I am partly to blame. Honestly, I don't see the good in reviewing a poll unless it is blatantly unfair, ratings of Fair, Satisfactory, Good, and Excellent don't really matter, IMO. I think we need to disband it, and if someone wishes to report an unfair poll, the whole PSC can post their opinion on it and whether it should be repolled. What do you think about this, should we disband it?

As far as I'm concerned this is a failing of the board members rather than of the board concept. I do not support disbanding it, but instead believe that either those who do not have time to fulfil their PSC duties should resign with honour intact and be replaced by individuals who do, or that the entire board should be forced from office and their positions put up for re-election.

I am still patiently waiting for the above issue to be resolved. I would be happy to clear the backlog by myself but I cant post anything until this confusion as been sorted. Perhaps Ek as the guiding light in this you could give us a ruling :)

Originally posted by Almightyjosh
*ATTENTION ALL MEMBERS*

The board of the PSC would like some direction on an issue with regards to assessing polls. The issue is the 'abstain' option. While the criteria written by Peri and adoped by the PSC (which are, I will add, on the whole very good) call for the abstain option only in some (might I say) limited circumstances, it has been past convention and (I believe) the intention of theis group to have the 'abstain' option as mandatory for all polls to recieve a grading of 'fair' or better.

It is my personal opinion that the 'abstain' option should be required for all polls, even those without a strict quorum. I have been treating the assesments with this view in mind, other board members have taken a different stance. We would like this cleared up quickly so we can continue assessing polls.
While I agree that abstain options make for better polls, I would not say that the lack of one necessarily makes a poll actively unfair. I think that in general the current weighting is more reasonable than the proposed alternative would be.

Just to clarify. You are saying that we go with the method and scoring outlined in the first post?
If YES then I will start rating. :)

Originally posted by Peri
I am still patiently waiting for the above issue to be resolved. I would be happy to clear the backlog by myself but I cant post anything until this confusion as been sorted. Perhaps Ek has the guiding light in this you could give us a ruling :)
I didn't see your earlier post until after I'd had my mini-rant, so I apologise if I seemed over-harsh. I'd suggest carrying out reviews left outstanding under our currently extant review procedure. Waiting for changes to be discussed and put into effect can be like waiting for Godot, and it's better that polls continue to be reviewed even to mildly imperfect standards than not at all.

EDIT: To summarise, that's a YES to your last question ;)

Are we holding new elections soon on PSC board members, or are the people who were elected in until they resign?

I am catching up with the backlog

Good question, Boots.

I think we would be best to hold regular elections for board membership - starting the process immediately after the main demogame elections so that the candidates know what other commitments they will have that term and can better decide whether or not they will have time to carry out PSC board duties.

It will also make it more likely that all willing PSC members will have a chance to serve on the board at some point, which can only be a good thing.

I would like to propose this proposal on the PSC board election process, to clarify it. I will poll this issue if it receives significant support (in a PSC open poll):

-Nominations will begin for PSC board members on the 1st of each month. They will be open for 48 hours, and only PSC members may run.
-Elections will begin when nominations close, on the 3rd, and will also be open for 48 hours. It will be done by a multi-choice anonymous poll, posted by a PSC member who is not running, with the top five candidates being elected to the PSC board. Runoff polls will be held as necessary. PSC members as well as citizens not in the PSC are allowed to vote on the PSC board members.
-PSC board terms end on the fifth of each month.

Sounds good :). And since I am the head of the Election Office, The Election Office is happy to support any Elections and Nomination Process for the PSC Board


...posted by a PSC member who is not running.


I am willing to Hire some PSC members for the purpouse of Posting the Polls for the PSC Board members.

Hmm, should we start the nominations for PSC Board Seat? Since the main elections are basicly over with.

Go for it :goodjob:

@Ekl - Where should the Nominations Thread for PSC Board Member be in? Main forum or Citizens forum?

Thanks,
Your Freindly Election Office Staff

The main forum seems traditional for these things, and I'm betting it'd just get moved out there anyway if we try posting the thread in the Citizen's ;)

The nomination thread for PSC Board is up

Term 3 - PSC Board Nominations (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=57498)

Since I have Nominated myself for that possition, The Election office is offering a possition to anyone who is not running for PSC Board so that they can post the poll.

I would like to join this group.

-Zarn, Lord Master and Foriegn Minister

Originally posted by Zarn
I would like to join this group.

-Zarn, Lord Master and Foriegn Minister

Wow, he read my mind....

Anyway... I'd like to join also ;)

Welcome, both of you :goodjob:

I neglected to take steps to pass on the job of caretaker for this group when I retired last month, but better late than never as they say... So I would like anyone interested in taking over my old role to self-nominate themselves for the job. I will not accept any nominations of other posters, as I believe the job should be held by someone committed to the group and enthusiastic enough about running it to put themselves forward.
Then, in 3 days from now, I will post an open-ballot election thread to decide who actually gets the position.

I would like to self-Nominate myself for the job.

Approximately 5 hours & 10 minutes to go before nominations close. Not that anyone besides CG seems to give a bugger.

Well since this is uncontested, congrats to CG.

You might want to start a new thread in order to be able to control the information in the first post...

I'll join :evil:

Perfection - Please sign in at the new PSC thread here
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64178