DG6 Polling 101 - SHOW US YOUR CARDS

[Cyc]

You can if you'd like, YNCS. The veteran players here are probably familiar with your process, as we've used it before. You run a poll on which traits we'd like our tribe to have the most, then if necessary you make that a preliminary poll and run a second. Then you take the tribes with the most popular traits and run a tribe selection poll. Correct?

 

[classical_hero]

I would like to see a change in the way how election polling is done. We need a change because they way that we did before did not work. I think that with elections that we should get rid of the option of Abstain. Since we are electing people we should have an opinion of who we want to win and not sit on the fence. This would be only for Elections I hated seeing when we had lots of choices that the winner could have less than 50% of the vote and still win. So this would leave two options that we could go for.

• Option 1.

We could have a run off between the two leading vote getters. This would take more time but would give us a clear winner. this is an easy to get the grasp option at first than the next option.

• Option 2.

We could have a preferential voting system. This is a complicated option but it can work because I live ina country that does this each election. Here is an example. You have 5 candidates running for President. So this is how the vote can go.

They way that a person votes is according to who they want to win. Here is a sample ballot.
1. Person 5 (this is the person I most want to be the winner and so on in order)
2. Person 1
3. Person 2
4. Person 4
5. Person 3

So according to this ballot i want 5 to be the winner and prefer not to have Person 3

Person 2 has the most votes in the first round.
Person 5 then,
Person 1,
Person 3, and then finally
Person 4 has the least votes.

Now person 4's votes now get redistributed to accoring the way those who voted for person 4 votes.

After redistribution the tally now looks like this:
Person 5
Person 1
Person 2
Person 3.

We repeat the proces until we are left with a person having 50%+1 of the vote.

Since it is a complicated but much fairer system, I'll volunteer to set up the Second option if that is what the people want. If they do not want this option, then I remove my volunteerism.

Another thought.

Here is a bold move that could affect the way how polling is done. I think that maybe we could have two separate registry list for those who want to be active in this game (citizens) and those who want to be lurkers. This way is that we can make it complusory for citizens to vote in every major decission that effects the nation. This would make some polls invalid for lurkers since they are not fully active in the game but still want to participate in a limited capacity. People can swap between to the two registries because some people who started as citizens, might not have the time to be active, so they need to change and vice versa. This would mean that we would need people to be looking after those two registries so we have an updated list of those who are active and lurking.

Please make comments on my suggestions.

 

[GenMarshall]

Sounds too long and complicated . I mean, if we go through this process of elimination in the elections, a week or two would have passed by (Depending on the number of canidates). Also, im not interested in having an Florida or an Ohio vote recount in the Demogame .

We should stick with the system that has been working since day one. "If it aint broke, dont fix it".

 

[Cyc]

Well ch, I wouldn't really mind getting rid of Abstain in the Election Polls, but when a citizen doesn't really know anything about either candidate, they shouldn't be forced to vote for either, or be denied the opportunity to vote. So I guess Abstain stays. I don't really have a problem with a candidate winning with less than 50% of the vote either.

As far as your options go, I really don't like the first one. What you're doing is telling the winner of an Election Poll that they didn't win and that they have to run again. That's kinda like you asking the woman you love to marry you and she says yes, but she wants to date your rival also until the wedding, just to make sure she chose the right man. It's not fair.

Option two is way too complicated for me. Sorry. Too many moving parts. Too many chances for malfunction.

And I don't agree with two Citizen Registries either. Why should we make the lurkers sit in the back of the bus? Not fair. And we can't make it cumpulsory for citizens to vote. That's impossible. Unless you know where each citizen lives and are a really, really bad dude with a really, really big bank account.

And last, this thread about Polling 101 is really about polls found in the Poll sub-forum. Elections Polls are found on the main page and are done by the Election Office. The Polling 101 class would be for citizens and Leaders who post polls on a variety of issues in a wide variety of styles. So your suggestions actually be long in the Official Discussion about Polls (Election).

Sorry I didn't have anything positive to say. Just answering your call for comments. Good work putting your post together though.

 

[GenMarshall]

Anywho, as Cyc mentioned that this is a polling 101. And I do wish to help out. Using Ekl's proposal as a backdrop. I have provided a couple of definitions from the webster's dictionary for the people who dont know the meaning of the words or just needs a refresher.

Abstain - to refrain deliberately and often with an effort of self-denial from an action or practice

Quorum - the number (as a majority) of officers or members of a body that when duly assembled is legally competent to transact business

Valid - well-grounded or justifiable

Plurality - 1. a number greater than another 2. an excess of votes over those cast for an opposing candidate or option

Please let me know if there would be any words that most newbies would not understand.

I do hope to lend a helping hand to YNCS with the polls .

 

[Provolution]

I suggest we structure this information in an official sticky thread, which should always be at the top of the polling sub forum, I also suggest that the polling standards commission put the link to this thread in their signatures, in order to amplify the visibility of the polling standards. We should also write the polling standards commission into the Constitution and Code of Laws. CoL because we may reform it underway. This way, speculative use of the polling concepts in public debates will be severely limited to stated objective criteria most people agreed on.

Polling Standards Commission

Introduction
Mission Statement
Terminology and definitions
Standards for setting up discussions leading up to polls
Standards for setting up polls
Standards for interpreting polls
Defining the Official "Will of the People" (WOTP tm) by objective criteria
Polling Commission Evaluation Method
Polling Commission Procedural Rules for responding to flawed polls
Penalties for bad polling

YNCS, Cyc,.CG and Provolution are so far in this Commission and I suggest we continue in this vein with what we started with.

Provolution: Introduction, organization and oversight
YNCS: Mission Statement, Polling Commission Evaluation Method and Procedural Response
Cyc: All the standards, from discussions through polling
Civgeneral : Terminology and definitions, defining the WOTP based on these standards

Of course we will help each other out, and make corrections and edits in good faith.

 

[Provolution]

I also suggest we develop some procedural polls on the most fundamental issues.

Nation Naming
Province Naming
City Naming
Unit Naming
Passing Constitutional Amendment
Passing Code of Law Amendment
Passing Judicial Review
Overruling Constitutional and Code of Law Principles in polls (Exceptions)
Appointments
Impeachments

 

[Cyc]

Actually Provo, I believe the Polling Standards Commission should be lead by, or at least have in its ranks, the originator of the PSC, Eklektikos. Not only have his ideas been a part of this discussion from the beginning, but his mastery of the English language will ensure that our thoughts get from electron to font in an appropriate manner. I stand in his shadow when it comes to writing standards.

Also, at this point, I don't believe the PSC should be drawing up polls for the issues you've stated above. That's not really what the PSC does, unless someone has requested assistance in writing polls. The purpose is to set standards to help everyone write polls, not take on the poll writing responsibilities. The people who initiate the threads or lead discussions on the issues above would probably post the polls for them.

Although the PSC would be the conduit for Poll Reform in DGVI, this entity wouldn't "take over" poll writing for the game. Its role would be of an advisory nature, at least in the beginning, and could develop into other areas as needed.

 

[Rik Meleet]

Although some of my polls were terrible, I think I have the skill of poll-making in my fingers. I am more than willing to assist making (and as mod: correcting) polls if that is neccesary and requested.

 

[Provolution]

Cyc Well I agree, I put myself in a very junior position here, as I can clearly see Eklektikos is the best of us to handle this. My little contribution was to put some organization into this to let the process develop, as I can see from previous times that the polling standards were buried in long diuscussions and then forgotten.
Ravensfire is right, we should avoid legalese for polling standards and use simple language
where we can, and have this in a revised and edited format in a sticky, with no real discussion going on in it, so everyone can read the essentials. I also think presentation format is key here, with linking the right threads, as well as properly introducing these.
I am sorry the opening post could be interpreted as somewhat harsh in this thread, but we see more and more that some of the junior people here might be tempted to abuse
Polling 101 and WOTP as buzzwords in order to blemish their political opponents.
Codifying all this, would cause less legitimate leeway for harangues and flaming campaigns.

 

[Cyc]

Welcome Rik Meleet. It's good to see you again.

I agree Provolution. But, at the moment, I'm wrestling with the idea of this "codifying" of Poll Procedures in our legal documents, as I'm not yet seeing its application. You may be right on that, but it seems a bit too stringent in my eyes.

 

[Provolution]

Well Cyc, I see you are reasonably skeptical to codifying the polling standards, but these are as important as instructions for turnchats and other issues. Especially since this would finally close the Pandoras box of WOTP and flawed polls for the sake of legitimacy and stability of the system. If we are a mock government, and we got that avalanche of laws for what have you with all the judicial reviews and so on, we definitively need to include polling standards that is fair to people not as knowledgeable about discussions, English language and so on.
Personally, I would spare some of my verbose language for the Newspaper "The Opposition" and be more to the point in practical threads.

I realized we need to emphathize with younger people, dyslectics, those impatient and judgemental, low reading ability, myopia and other reasons for them not understanding the polls. We need to communicate the polls in order to mobilize more participation, and rather keep our much more entertaining ramblings in separate sections of the forum. We may have fun with some 20 or so people in one thread, but then you get the 5-6 six over-mature no nonsense types starting harangues over it or some hurt kids starting to stalk you for perpetuity. So I agree, keep polling standards simple, clear cut and easily grasped, and then legislate these.

Enforcement is simple, we just have Polling Commission members sort of "moderating" the polls with pasting in the corresponding Polling Standard Article and add a polite comment calling for improvement of the poll. Still, we should be less rigid on making discussions compulsory on all polls, but specify what magnitude these are needed at.
Some polls could for my sake be posted right away, or the forums would be too clogged. We need less and more targeted polls to garner more people joining in.

 

[Provolution]

Good call Rik, we may need a Moderator to enforce some sort of polling regime. A poor poll can in many circumstances be considered as bad as a flame or a troll for citizens that feel strongly about a major topic. I have produced both flawed and good polls, so I know what the range could entail. however, these polling standards should be discussed (with a deadline), revised and polled with the citizen registry and made part of the laws, and then enforced by the Polling Commission and Moderators. This way, we get a fine cooperation going on between the citizens and the moderator, as we basically agree on the polling standards. With clear and solid rules on this, there would be less cause for frustration and potential flames and insults.

 

[Provolution]

Cyc, I really think the Polling Commission should present a draft for institutionalizing tacit knowledge to become explicit knowledge and codes. Traditional Laws is something we need to leave for good, and make everything accessible by new citizens.
The only major mistake I saw in DG 5 was the part of "traditional laws", which was only traditional and known to the early veterans, which excluded a lot of people.
And some of these laws required enforcement.

 

[Provolution]

Eklektikos

I think many of us will be honored if you would lead the drafting of the polling standards in simple language, not legalese, but still applicable to be enforced effectively. The best laws in the world are easily understood but still can be interpreted only one way.
I will still keep some inputs on the organizational level, so we can fill in the blanks that is gaping holes stemming from DG experience and "traditional laws" not being forged out in real rules newcomers may relate to.

 

[Black_Hole]

Good call Rik, we may need a Moderator to enforce some sort of polling regime. A poor poll can in many circumstances be considered as bad as a flame or a troll for citizens that feel strongly about a major topic. I have produced both flawed and good polls, so I know what the range could entail. however, these polling standards should be discussed (with a deadline), revised and polled with the citizen registry and made part of the laws, and then enforced by the Polling Commission and Moderators. This way, we get a fine cooperation going on between the citizens and the moderator, as we basically agree on the polling standards. With clear and solid rules on this, there would be less cause for frustration and potential flames and insults.

i would prefer if moderators only edited polls if the poll poster indicates so...
Of course I am not the one that gets a voice in that

 

[Provolution]

I think we need to leave pure anarchy behind, and make the majority agree on poll standards, make the Polling Commission make their recommendations, and the moderator to act on these recommendation in agreement with the poll poster. Since these are DG rules not forum rules, these rules should stem from the people. But never again will flagrant abuse of Polling 101 and WOTP be used as buzzwords for political harangues, if these terms and mechanisms are pinned down in legal codes.

 

[Black_Hole]

well if we are going to do this we need to removed this from article a:

the right
to free speech,

if we get pissed at someone for bad polling CC them(as long as we have polling standards in the law), not have a moderator forcefully edit their post....
we dont need to rely on moderator to enforce our rules, in DG1 and 2 there was an article that said mods would enforce forum rules only, not DG rules. We should find that and bring it back....

 

[Provolution]

the right to free speech is key, and could be done in all threads and so on.
But if we agree on polling standards, we need to abide my them, or enforce them. There is no middle ground there. If someone complains about polling 101 as a standard, it should become a standard indeed. Free speech will take place in all discussions and the right to post a poll. However, official polls are bound by law, and posting a flawed poll on an official instruction decision is as bad as ignoring the instructions by the DP.
Polls are by definition the WOTP. I also think CCs are not working too well , and these should be kept as a last resort; I will sure never file one in the future. Notice that many of us want this to limit the conflict level and to agree on common groundrules.

Also notice that this process call for polling commission to point this out, ask the poller
to redo the poll, and if the poller agrees, make the moderator fix it. If the poller refuses to fix it, the polling standards will be used as solid and fresh evidence that will really make the CC case crystal clear, and not any political flavored decision based on gut-feeling, "common sense" and the political winds of the moment.

Where the polling standard has pointed out the wrong, the poller allowed to rectify it with moderator assistance, and the adjustment refused by the poller, this will be ery tangible evidence for a CC. Freedom of speech has been maintained, but fairly balanced with the right to participate in polls and the right to information.
A bad poll reneges BOTH the right to information and the right to participate.
This solution would fairly balance speech vs information and participation.
Democracy does not mean the right of someone to mislead, confuse and abuse their people, but to balance the rights in a fair, transparent and effective manner, especially
when it comes to the final accountability.

Black_hole, I know your skepticism to the undersigned and moderators, but we need to work with them for this to work, and we need a system that assures minimum quality of polling. We also should leave all traces of Anarcho-syndicalism behind.

 

[blackheart]

Provo, I have no idea what you just said, but I think it was along the lines of "make polls clear, easy to understand, and not misleading."

Why do we need mods as enforcers? Are they going to ban someone for a bad poll? It should be up to citizens to decided what to do when someone breaks a DG rule. Mods are there to enforce forum rules.