Citizen's Initiative - Poll Invalidation Act of 1680 BC

Do you approve of this Initiative?

  • Total voters
    24
  • Poll closed .
ravensfire

ravensfire

Member of the Opposition
Joined
Feb 1, 2002
Messages
5,281
Location
Gateway to the West
Citizen's,

This initiative covers how polls will be invalidated. Basically, any member of the Judiciary can invalidate a poll. Such invalidations can then be appealed to the full Judiciary by anyone.

Discussion has been in this thread

Do you approve of this initiative?
Yes - You approve of this initiative
No - You do not approve of this initiative
Abstain - You have no preference about this initiative

Poll Invalidation Act of 1680 BC(date TBD at time of poll posting)

Section 1 - Invalidation
Any member of the Judiciary may declare a poll to be invalid at any time prior to the poll closing, or 72 hours after the poll has opened, which ever is later. This invalidation must be done with a post by the member of the Judiciary invalidating the poll in the poll thread. This post must clearly state that the poll has been invalidated and the reason(s) they are invalidating the poll.

Polls that are invalidated do not count as any form of decision making.

Polls that result in an irreversible action be taken before any invalidation post may still be invalidated, but the action will not be reversed. For example - an in-game action is taken during a game session before an invalidation post. The results of that poll may not be used as a precedent for future actions.

Section 2 - Appeal
Any citizen objecting to an invalidation may appeal it to the full Judiciary. The Judiciary will conduct all appeals in a timely manner as specified in the Judicial procedures. This appeal must be made within 24 hours of the invalidation, and must be posted in the Judicial thread.

If the appeal is upheld, the poll is immediately considered valid.
Click to expand...

Settings:
Public poll
Single choice
Poll expiration: 3 days

Interpretation: If there are more Yes votes than No votes at the close of the poll, the initiative is accepted.
 
I don't really like the wording of Section 1.... as I read it.... what it's saying is:

"A Judiciary may declare a poll invalid after it has been open for 72 hours, but not after the poll has closed"

In which case.... I kinda feel 72 hours is too long....

Now that I've re-read it again I can see another meaning though....

They can declare it invalid any time before it closes, and any time before it has been open 72 hours.

If this is the case (which actually makes more sence to me), then I feel the wording should be "tweaked" to make that clear.

For now I'm withholding my vote
 
Basically, a poll can be invalidated anytime before it closes. If the poll was open for less than 72 hours, (ie 1 or 2 days), it can be invalidated even after it closes, up to 72 hours after the poll was opened. Polls can be invalidated up to the later of the poll closing or 72 hours after the poll was opened.

A minimum 3 day window essentially guarantees that at least one member of the Judiciary will view the poll. This prevents someone from using a 1 day window on a bad poll to get around this measure.

The closed poll scenario is why there's the clause about irreversible actions. We can't go back on some actions, even if that action was directed from a bad poll. What we can do is say that this was a bad poll, and prevent the results of that poll from being used to justify further actions.

-- Ravensfire
 
Alright, that makes sence, though I'd still like a wording that makes that a little more clear.
 
The wording is a bit confusing. I like this in principle so I'll vote to take it out for a spin and see how it does.
 
The only thing is that Citizens should be able to make a poll to revalidate the poll.

Voted no for the reason above.
 
mike6426 said:
The only thing is that Citizens should be able to make a poll to revalidate the poll.

Voted no for the reason above.
Click to expand...
There is a way more powerful option to your disposal: re-poll the issue at stake with acknowledging the invalidating aspects.
 
Voted Yes... while I think the first part could have been worded better to make it much clearer, I agree with the initiative beyond that. So long as the correct interpretation of that sentence is made clear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (5-71) Goddess of Protection Rework
Replies
12
Views
2K
pineappledan
pineappledan
S
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (4-24) Proposal: Self-Determination: Include "Remove Sphere of Influence" in Benefit
Replies
2
Views
850
Recursive
Recursive
pineappledan
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (4-16) Proposal: Remove Stadium from Faith of the Masses Reformation Belief
Replies
8
Views
981
Recursive
Recursive
A
  • Poll
Espionage direction poll (Part 2-1)
Replies
1
Views
616
azum4roll
A
Legen
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (4-14) Proposal: Normalize the number of spies between Covert Action and Double Agents
2
Replies
22
Views
2K
Legen
Legen
Top Bottom