What should we do to ensure polling is fair?

[DaveShack]

One complaint we have in nearly every demogame is against unfair polling practices. How do we define what is fair, preferably without a hugely complicated definition? What should we do about unfair polls? What should we do if opponents of a fair poll try to undermine its credibility by falsely claiming it is unfair?

I don't have all the answers. It may be the opinion of some that I don't have any of the answers.

So, what say you citizens? How do you want fair to be defined?

[dutchfire]

If you think a poll isn't fair, you can override it with a new poll, at least according to the constitution we had, and the one we're polling at the moment.

[Love]

Good idea... We can have a poll about what people think about polls if their fair or unfair...

[donsig]

Originally Posted by dutchfire

If you think a poll isn't fair, you can override it with a new poll, at least according to the constitution we had, and the one we're polling at the moment.

Yes and I think that's the best method. We do have to learn to accept the results of polls, even bad and unfair ones. As dutchfire points out we can always fix up a poll and resubmit it.

Unfair polls are like obscene things - we might not be able to define them but we'll know them when we see them!

We've had a lot of experience making polls. I suggest we make up a template or series of templates that exemplify good polls and encourage people to use them - with out making rules or laws to enforce that. Let's see what happens before we make rules we may not need.

Another thing we can do is encourage the use of mock polls in the discussion thread. This has worked well in the past for amendments and there's no reason we can't do them for regular initiatives. Allowing everyone to take a look at the proposed poll will help the discussion along, get people thinking how they would vote in the poll, help us to hammer out interpretation issues before the poll is actually posted and generally give us fairer polls since unfair aspects can be pointed out before the thing is posted. Again, I would not make this a rule unless we see a big problem occurring.

Also, I think we should make it a rule that no one is allowed to change a poll vote once it is cast.

Finally, by ensuring an abstain option is present and counting abstain votes towards a majority we can block unfair polls by logging enough abstain votes.

[dutchfire]

Also, I think we should make it a rule that no one is allowed to change a poll vote once it is cast.

What about mis-clicks and/or a wrong interprentation of the option?
I'd say that you're only allowed to change your vote once, and within 5 hours of voting (is this technically possible?)

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

[DaveShack]

This is another all or nothing issue, where I'm firmly and unmovably in the middle. I flat out refuse to say that all informational polls are bad and none can be allowed. Take the current poll:

How would you respond to playing the DemoGame on Warlords?

• I would be more active than if we used Vanilla.
• I would be just as active as if we used Vanilla.
• I would not be as active as if we used Vanilla.
• I would not participate in the DemoGame at all.

This poll is NOT asking if we should play Warlords, it's asking for a hypothetical reaction if we were to take that step. There is no way such a poll can be binding, because it's not asking an actionable question.

If you really want there to be no informational polls, you have two choices.

1. Try to tell people they're not allowed to post them. That's against the forum rules btw. You do have a recourse against spam polls of course, but the case against legitimate ones is shaky.
2. Find some way to convert an actionless poll to be binding, even though it effectively says nothing. How's that fair?

Now, are some informational polls bad? Do some people misuse them at some times? Of course they do. I won't stand in the way of taking an otherwise valid poll which claims to be informational and making it binding.

Edit: A rule saying that actionable polls are binding regardless of whether they are marked informational would be acceptable. My real concern is with saying nobody can post a non-actionable (and therefore inherently informational) poll.

That's a hint though, talking about it does not make it a rule.

[Shattered]

This poll is NOT asking if we should play Warlords, it's asking for a hypothetical reaction if we were to take that step. There is no way such a poll can be binding, because it's not asking an actionable question.

If you really want there to be no informational polls, you have two choices.
Try to tell people they're not allowed to post them. That's against the forum rules btw. You do have a recourse against spam polls of course, but the case against legitimate ones is shaky.
Find some way to convert an actionless poll to be binding, even though it effectively says nothing. How's that fair?

Now, are some informational polls bad? Do some people misuse them at some times? Of course they do. I won't stand in the way of taking an otherwise valid poll which claims to be informational and making it binding.

i totally agree with you man.. when I looked at that poll i didnt quite understand the point of it.. it didnt really bother me.. but what did bother me was the fact that it did nothing to help solve an issue involvning the demo game.. oh well.. im sure things will start smoothly
peace,
Shattered

[donsig]

I think we need a gentleman's agreement to limit the types of polls we post. (That wouldn't be against forum rules would it?) I don't really think the answer is to tell people they can't post a certian type of poll. The answer is to agree that ALL polls are to be considered official and binding. For polls that have no actionable component (like the how do you feel about poll) what's wrong with just considering it official and binding and move on? Since there is no actionable component we're not bound to do anything anyway, right? I do hope we can avoid polls that ask So, how do you feel about declaring war on the Mongols?

Ravensfire is right though that even polls with questions like that one should influence our game play.

[ordinaryguy]

If you feel too strongly about something, then don't poll it! Your questions will be affected by your stand against the issue.

[LordOgre]

i think the best way to ensure polling is fair, is for each people to comment on their vote, you shouldn't vote if you can't explain your choice, so post it... that way, polling will be fair, no one can vote 20 times to cheat the poll score.

and a poll is a way to know what people thinks, not what we ARE going to do... unless the poll question specifically says that this will be the next course of action...


just adding my 2 golds per turn

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

[LordOgre]

Originally Posted by ravensfire

One of the core rights of citizens is the right of Free Speech. That includes the right NOT to speak. Often, I feel my vote explains itself. I rarely have the urge to post simply to state what I voted for. Some of our citizens are lurkers - they prefer to read and vote, but not post. That should be considered perfectly acceptable!

yeah sorry, guess i went a little old school on that thought. every democratic system let the anonimity of the voters to actually stop any attempt by the "wannabes" to force people to vote for them. since we are playing a democratic game, votes dont need to be explained.

forcing people to say what they voted for would be fascism...

[DaveShack]

I like having this specified instead of being an unwritten agreement.

In the requirements section, polls must be open for at least 2 days. Our more legally inclined citizens would argue that without the "at least" this would mean every poll must be exactly 2 days.

We've had problems with people reacting to "should" the same as "must". I don't know what the cure for this is, just mentioning it in case something can be done.

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

[Vind2]

Mods (maybe admin) CAN view private polls
Mods (maybe admin) CAN edit poll numbers.
But I trust all of our mods (TF does)

[DaveShack]

Originally Posted by ravensfire

How about, "a minimum of 2 days"?

Sure, any equivalent wording will do.

I think I've got the Requirements using "must" and "will", and the Guidelines using "should". Requirements must be done, Guidelines are optional, but encouraged. The only two uses of 'may' in the Requirements look acceptable to me, as one is 'may not', the other is public v private.

I understand what you've written and personally, feel it is OK, but other legendary figures have said they thought "should" means "must". Perhaps a global definition could be added (not just for this initiative) stating the difference, so there can be no confusion?

Also while we're on the subject of slippery word definitions, unfortunately there is likely to be confusion about the definitions of "neutral", "clear", and possibly even "obvious" and "relevant".

[ice2k4]

I like what you have written Ravensfire, mainly because of the compromise.

I just want to make it clear though, that your act/clause does not restrict users from posting polls (that may be used as informational, just not officially informational) that have a question that can not be technically binding. The example I'll use is the Warlords vs. Vanilla poll I created that was so controversial.

If I'm an official, and I feel that we need more information towards something, like let's say the amount of participation we would gain or lose by using Warlords, to better provide the citizens with the information on the effects of our actions, than I see no reason why I should not be allowed to post it. If you haven't realized, that before the posting of that poll, most people were pro-warlords. After posting that poll, many people switched back to saying vanilla, because they realized the consequence of choosing warlords. Now you may say that the poll accomplished nothing, because it was only informational, and did not decide whether we use warlords or vanilla, it certainly helped us to not make a blind decision.

Maybe informational polls should not be used on in-game decisions, but decisions that pertain to our laws and government should surely be allowed to be accompanied by an informational poll.

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire