DG6 Polling 101 - SHOW US YOUR CARDS

This is a request for the DG Aristocrats to come up with the official Polling 101 Standards, so we can nail them down, and ensure the people that they actually practice what they preach. SOme of us had enough of the abuse of the terms of Will of the People and the Polling 101 argument used to stomp out unwanted initiatives or statements. Nailing down this standards would be the beginning to the end for this atrocious regime of hollow rhetoric, political correctness and abuse of usurped power based on arcane and obscure DG experiences.

Bring it out into the open now so we all can share in this for a fair and transparent system, and bring this regime of terminological terror to an end.

Mocking accusations of aristocratic pretention aside, I will in the next one or two posts reproduce the polling methodology adopted around the end of DG1 and beginning of DG2 as written up at the time by Almightyjosh.

1: Yes/No/Abstain
This is the simplest type of poll, just ask a question, and get an answer.

Construction
Things to remember:
- Always include an 'Abstain' option. Always.

- Make sure your questions are phrased in the affirmative
eg. don't use: 'should we not have a party?'
use: 'should we have a party?'

- Make sure your answer will be definitive
ie Is there a time contraint? Do you need to be more specific?
don't use: 'should we do this?'
use 'should we do this now?' or 'should we do this before we...?'

Interpretation
If a majority of votes cast, excluding abstentions, are cast in favour, then the motion is passed. Otherwise, the motion is lost.

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 higher proportion of no-abstain votes required to pass the motion or the requirement that yes votes outweigh both no votes and abstentions)


2: Approval
This is a multichoice poll. It is used to show approval for a number of possibilities at once, or to cut down a list. Before you start, you need to think of what criteria an option must satisfy to 'win'.

Construction
You may say either:
'the top x options will be accepted', so that the top x highest polling options will 'win'. This is best for cutting down lists to managable sizes!
'any option gaining x percentage of the vote will 'win', so that any option that more than x percent of voters approve will 'win'. I would suggest that 51% is a good option! This is very useful for polling a number of things at once, but be carful not to misuse it.

In both cases, x (which represents a number btw) should be predetermined and displayed in the first post.

Another option is an outside constraint like 'we will establish embassies with the top polling option until we hit our 200 gold budget'.

Things to remember
- Always include an 'Abstain' option. Always.

- Check the 'this is a multichoice poll' option!!

- If it is a poll to determine approval for a number of different options (as opposed to cutting a list) make DAMN SURE all of the options can be done without infringing fundamentally on the others.

Interpretation
The 'winners' are selected by one of two means depending on the aim of the poll:

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.

In these polls I think the value of x should be displayed in the first post.

3: Plurality Choice
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
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. 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 luxuries - 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.


c) Choosing 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
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 'at least 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 'at least an ROP' (ROP and MPP) than voted for 'No ROP' (peace, ceasfire and war).

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

Good work Eclecticos, you now won a big star in my book. I like people who work more than they abuse terms to minimize people. You brought new valuable knowledge to the forums, and for that you should be bestowed the due respect. To the others abusing the polling 101 term without helping to clarify and refine it , the accusation of pretense of Aristocracy remains firm and unwavering.

Maybe we can deal with another paper-tiger, "Will of the People" , when we are at it.

And, to put the above information into context and fill in certain gaps, here are the polling procedures as enacted within the DG2 Code of Standards:

Forum Poll Procedures

1. The following criteria are required for a poll to be binding:


2. The following criteria are required for a poll to be valid:


3. The following criteria are preferred for all polls:


4. Information polls - Do not have restrictions and cannot be used to justify policy, plans or actions.

Watch out Provo, the big bad conspiratic aristocrats are coming for you!

Good work Eklektikos.

Not really, I have no quarrels with them They take the joke... On the other hand...

I would suggest that people quit whining about others not speaking on the subject of Polling Statndards. Especially people who have not been around very long. Polling Standards have been discussed every Demogame, at length. And people just ignore the advice/help that some of us put out. I'm sure the work that Ek has done above will soon be forgotten by veterans and never read by newbies because no one really wants to read about this. That's the problem. That's why we have bad pollers. Quit complaining and read.

In another thread, Ek linked to what he called a DG2 Polling Standars Discussion. That was actually done in DG3. In fact, AlmightyJosh wrote the standards, linked to the DG3 Polling Standard Commision of DG3. Just so you know, Provo, that was the third Demogame in which Polling Standars were discussed.

In DG2 there was an abundance of discussion, although it was probably soon forgotten. And it's all still there for you to read. Take a look.

DG2 Poll Reform Discussion

DG2 Poll Reform Poll

DG2 Discussion of Citizen Polls

The Infamous DG2 Polling Standards Commision

We have discussed, enlightened, adviced, pleaded, and documented the different aspects of polling standards over and over. No one seems to grasp these concepts.

Why haven't we brought these threads forward every game? Well that seems kind of pointless if no one's going to adhere to what's been posted. Like you, they just don't read them. I haven't been through what Ek has posted above yet, I was researching his link in another thread. So why you're reading the things I've linked to, I'll read what Ek's posted above.

I see Ek has impressed Provo. I'm sooo happy.

I will note that the Polling Procedures nailed down in the CoS were from the DG2 Constitution. Funny, I thought the DG2 Constitution was too restrictive for the majority here. Oh, wait a minute. Am I confusing restrictive with informative?

The aristocrat here, nice work Ek... I will comment in detail later(kinda busy now)

Well, make it a prerequisite that the election committee makes Polling standards a sticky thread, and inform all new elected officials to read them up every new term.
If you uys make that an institution, as much as the RPG, that could really help.
Then, every poor poll could get the polling standards, part of CoL. The Judge Advocate could then Quote the polling standards paragraph in every heavily flawed poll and politely ask the poller to repoll the issue. Then we could put an effective end to making Polling 101 a sort of unidentified flame or political attack, but a discreet and professional correctional adjustment of the polling process.

Misread and flawed polls is the root of many flamewars in this game, and this could really help if we made this a central part of our system. Polling is by definition the Will of the People, and by doing this, abuse of the Will of the People as a term will be severely limited, as everyone knows that only violating polling standards or ignoring majority voices in the discussions is truly the WOTP, nothing else.

So strangulating veteran buzzwords used to take out competition, by forming a fair, transparent and effective system would indeed make this place more civic.
So let us pin down, discuss and poll Polling Standards as a part of our laws.

As already mentioned we had a Polling Standards Commission in one of the previous games. The volunteer members of this commission had the charter of looking at each posted poll and rating it as good, fair, poor, and unfair. Those polls rated as unfair were encouraged to be invalidated and reopened after being reworded. People who wanted to open a poll and weren't sure how to accomplish what they wanted could take the prospective poll to the commission and get feedback on it before creating the actual poll.

This commission does not need to be all veterans, in fact a mixture of veterans and relative newcomers is desireable. The true goal of such a group of people is not to not to disparage bad polls (though a little pressure often helps reform bad polls) but rather to make sure the citizens have good choices presented to them, in an easily understandable format and without bias.

Some more polling standards which came up during the last game would be:

• Just as an abstain option should always be present, a no option should always be present. Do not disguise it by calling it abstain. (yes we had one poll which did exactly that)
• The first post should summarize what the poll is about, at a minimum. Do not just post a link to discussion, and don't make references to ideas embedded in discussions without at least a minimal definition in the poll itself.
• Don't use a list of fancy names for plans which are all similar, so that people can't distinguish the options, especially in poll options. Especially don't use a lot of words. Instead of "Big gnarly operation using the 3rd army of the people's elite mounted guard who used to be footsoldiers to recapture the glorious town of Shofragulum from the hated enemy who used to be our friends the Cartheginians" as a poll option, use "Recapture Shofragulum using Knights".

If I can think of more, I'll add them.

DaveShack said:

Don't use a list of fancy names for plans which are all similar, so that people can't distinguish the options, especially in poll options. Especially don't use a lot of words. Instead of "Big gnarly operation using the 3rd army of the people's elite mounted guard who used to be footsoldiers to recapture the glorious town of Shofragulum from the hated enemy who used to be our friends the Cartheginians" as a poll option, use "Recapture Shofragulum using Knights".

Click to expand...

Yes, we definitely need people to use less ostentatious (fancy,pointless,etc.) vocabulary and use more vernacular (common speech). It doesn't help if it takes more than a few seconds to understand what someone is saying, especially when they're rambling.

DaveShack said:

As already mentioned we had a Polling Standards Commission in one of the previous games...This commission does not need to be all veterans, in fact a mixture of veterans and relative newcomers is desireable.

Click to expand...

As a newcomer, I volunteer to be on the Polling Standards Commission.

YNCS said:

As a newcomer, I volunteer to be on the Polling Standards Commission.

Click to expand...

I'll second YNCS!

and I third YNCS and Cyc, these are good people I like to work with.

It *should* be pretty simple. Should.

To me, a good poll is going to have:

• Simply stated options in the poll
• Options succienctly and clearly explained in first post
• All significant, relevant information included in first post (example - production of cities when determining where to build a wonder)
• All options with decent support (see note 1)
• An abstain option
• A negative option
• First post should clearly state objectives of poll, time limit of poll and how the poll will be interpreted
• Link to all relevant discussion threads
• All poll options and entire first post should be stated in a neutral tone. Use the next post to lobby

Note 1: This doesn't mean include every single option. If the option has no, or minimal support, isn't a viable option, of you have a good, defensible reason to not include it, don't include the option.

See, polls should be neutrally stated, get the information to the citizen and explain how they will be interpreted. We had a few monumentally confusing polls (that massive, multiple choice poll from the minister of defense comes to mind). If you've got more than 7 or 8 options, you've probably got too many.

-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire said:

All significant, relevant information included in first post (example - production of cities when determining where to build a wonder)

Click to expand...

Oh no! I'm branded for life!

ravensfire said:

If you've got more than 7 or 8 options, you've probably got too many.

Click to expand...

That's not always true. I'm preparing the polls for determining the starting situation for the game. There are 8 levels of difficulty (plus abstain), 9 different land masses plus random (and abstain) and, of course, 31 different civs to choose from.

However, I understand your point about keeping things simple. I intend to make the polls easy. Instead of listing all 31 civs in the poll, I'll have two polls, one for each characteristic. If, for instance, seafaring isn't one of the chosen characteristics, that'll eliminate 7 civs immediately.

BTW, if it's felt necessary, I'll be happy to open a thread on how I intend to run the polling.