Invalidate 2 polls

730195 · Apr 10, 2007

Since neither

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=216473
nor
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=216474

includes an option for None of the above, I believe these polls constitute an undemocratic attempt to require that these rivers be named. This, in my view, violates the spirit of our democracy and I ask that both polls be hereby invalidated.

ravensfire · Apr 11, 2007

No.

No requirement for none of the above is present, so there is no rule preventing this.

If you don't like the names that are up there, you only have yourself to blame for not suggesting any. The spirit of democracy revolves not around voting, but around citizen participation. That participation was evident in the discussion about how to name things, and in the choices for naming them.

Those citizens that choose to participate seconded two names. Now, we have an attempted end run around that participation, that effort. Cut this attempt off, and vote to allow both polls to continue.

-- Ravensfire

ori · Apr 11, 2007

We do have a procedure how to invalidate polls - this is not the one

so I vote no.
I do believe that there should be an option for people who just don't want to name a specific plot on the map

so I'd suggest posting this or a similar initiative soonish...

NKVD · Apr 11, 2007

ravensfire said:
No.

No requirement for none of the above is present, so there is no rule preventing this.

If you don't like the names that are up there, you only have yourself to blame for not suggesting any. The spirit of democracy revolves not around voting, but around citizen participation. That participation was evident in the discussion about how to name things, and in the choices for naming them.

Those citizens that choose to participate seconded two names. Now, we have an attempted end run around that participation, that effort. Cut this attempt off, and vote to allow both polls to continue.

-- Ravensfire

thank you!

Falcon02 · Apr 11, 2007

Even if None of the Above was required in such polls, it is missing in this one.

So, if this measure were to pass, it would then follow that this poll would then invalidate itself.

730195 · Apr 11, 2007

Falcon02 said:
Even if None of the Above was required in such polls, it is missing in this one.

So, if this measure were to pass, it would then follow that this poll would then invalidate itself.

That's a bit of a reach. This poll does not attempt to determine a rule for all polls. It simply asks the voters if two specific polls meet their (subjective) standards of a "fair" poll.

I also thought we had generally reached the conclusion that simple yes/no polls had no significant use for "None of the above".

grant2004 · Apr 11, 2007

I agree a there is no such thing as none of the above in a yes/no poll, however you should have gone about challenging these polls through the process that has been decided on through our initiative on poll invalidation

730195 · Apr 11, 2007

grant2004 said:
however you should have gone about challenging these polls through the process that has been decided on through our initiative on poll invalidation

"should" is one of those tricky words to interpret.

We decided on a judicial process in Citizen's Initiative - Poll Invalidation Act of 1680 BC and How should we invalidate forum polls?.

Is it your position that these polls define the judicial process as the ONLY acceptable way to invalidate a poll? If so, then considering that How should we invalidate forum polls? includes as a losing option the use of "None of the above", should we read that the use of this option in a poll is no longer permitted? Or that it has no meaning?

If your meaning of "should" is not that the judicial process is the ONLY way, just a better way, please explain. My interest is in allowing a wider participation in this decision - what is yours?

Falcon02 · Apr 11, 2007

730195 said:
That's a bit of a reach. This poll does not attempt to determine a rule for all polls. It simply asks the voters if two specific polls meet their (subjective) standards of a "fair" poll.

I also thought we had generally reached the conclusion that simple yes/no polls had no significant use for "None of the above".

Not quite actually...

"None of the Above" is also used by some to vote against a particular poll, ie. to say "I don't like the options" or "I don't like this poll"

Not to mention this is not necessarily a simple yes or no... what if someone finds cause to invalidate one and not the other? Only options you've got here is both or none at all.

730195 · Apr 11, 2007

Falcon02 said:
Not quite actually...

"None of the Above" is also used by some to vote against a particular poll, ie. to say "I don't like the options" or "I don't like this poll"

I submit that voting no in my poll has the same exact effect as if I had included NOTA. Either no or NOTA will leave the two polls in question untouched.

Falcon02 said:
Not to mention this is not necessarily a simple yes or no... what if someone finds cause to invalidate one and not the other? Only options you've got here is both or none at all.

Your reach is growing. I suppose you could take any yes/no question and try to artificially divide the yes or the no into 2 parts and then declare you would like one half of yes, but not the other half. And that's all you have done here. I lumped two polls together because they had exactly the same flaw and I asked if that flaw undermined their democratic standing. If there are other grounds to invalidate only one of the polls, I will leave it to you to mount the challenge in the manner you see fit.

Falcon02 · Apr 11, 2007

730195 said:
I submit that voting no in my poll has the same exact effect as if I had included NOTA. Either no or NOTA will leave the two polls in question untouched.

Your reach is growing. I suppose you could take any yes/no question and try to artificially divide the yes or the no into 2 parts and then declare you would like one half of yes, but not the other half. And that's all you have done here. I lumped two polls together because they had exactly the same flaw and I asked if that flaw undermined their democratic standing. If there are other grounds to invalidate only one of the polls, I will leave it to you to mount the challenge in the manner you see fit.

I think you misunderstand my intent... I'm not saying that I think just one of the referenced polls should be invalidated, in fact I think both are fine as they are. I was merely pointing out that sometimes Yes/No is not always as simple as you suggest, especially when applying it to multiple things.

That said, I do not seriously think this poll should really be invalidated, even if the first option wins. My original post was simply to point out a bit of irony I saw in the fact that the poll that would invalidate two other polls for the lack of a NOTA option, has no NOTA option itself. I apologize for the confusion, and apologize if you take offense.

grant2004 · Apr 11, 2007

730195 said:
"should" is one of those tricky words to interpret.

We decided on a judicial process in Citizen's Initiative - Poll Invalidation Act of 1680 BC and How should we invalidate forum polls?.

Is it your position that these polls define the judicial process as the ONLY acceptable way to invalidate a poll? If so, then considering that How should we invalidate forum polls? includes as a losing option the use of "None of the above", should we read that the use of this option in a poll is no longer permitted? Or that it has no meaning?

If your meaning of "should" is not that the judicial process is the ONLY way, just a better way, please explain. My interest is in allowing a wider participation in this decision - what is yours?

In my opinion the legal option is better for this sort of situation because it would create a precedent that would be used for future polls, the legal option is better if you want to attack the way the poll is run, like you wish to do here, because it will officially show what kind of poll is acceptable, and prevent such disputes in the future.

Using a poll to invalidate other polls appears to be the better situation when you want to change the result of the poll based on new information, as was done for the location of our third city.

I believe the poll asking if None of the Above should be required as a poll option, can be interpreted on intention, the people voting against None of the Above being required did not intend to say that it should be forbidden, they only intended to leave it to the discretion of the individual pollster

NKVD · Apr 11, 2007

anyway 730195 you should be even more worry of all the names that passed without a poll because they were the only one suggested and seconded.

Second what will it do to you if two rivers are named instead of not being named ? they will only appears on maps. Dont give me the "it wasnt democratic" because clearly it followd the rules and second this poll proves it by democratic votes

730195 · Apr 11, 2007

grant2004 said:
In my opinion the legal option is better for this sort of situation because it would create a precedent that would be used for future polls, the legal option is better if you want to attack the way the poll is run, like you wish to do here, because it will officially show what kind of poll is acceptable, and prevent such disputes in the future.

By legal option, are you thinking of a court challenge or a new initiative that more precisely defines what is/not allowed/required/forbidden in a poll? If the former, I was dubious of such a venture as I don't know on what basis the court could make a decision. If the latter, it seemed to require more time and encompass many more issues. In either case, the course I took seemed much simpler and I tend to go for simplicity.

grant2004 said:
I believe the poll asking if None of the Above should be required as a poll option, can be interpreted on intention, the people voting against None of the Above being required did not intend to say that it should be forbidden, they only intended to leave it to the discretion of the individual pollster

AFAICT, we have not had a poll on whether to require None of the above. We did discuss the possibility in Initiative: Include both Abstain *and* None of the Above, but I don't find any votes actually happening. The poll I referred to was how to invalidate a poll and the choices included the judicial approach and the NOTA approach. Since the judicial approach won, I was wondering if NOTA had therefore lost and if that meant NOTA could not be used to invalidate a poll.

730195 · Apr 11, 2007

NKVD said:
anyway 730195 you should be even more worry of all the names that passed without a poll because they were the only one suggested and seconded.

Help me out here - which names were passed this way?

NKVD said:
Second what will it do to you if two rivers are named instead of not being named ? they will only appears on maps. Dont give me the "it wasnt democratic" because clearly it followd the rules and second this poll proves it by democratic votes

Well, let's see, I will never swim in either river and if I had any kids, I wouldn't let them swim there either. As to the undemocratic nature of the polls, I stand by my remark. I have never said the polls broke any rules, but they are, nonetheless, undemocratic. You specifically and openly omitted an option from the polls which was known to be popular with a significant number of voters in past polls. You did this in order that options that you preferred would have a better chance of winning. This is known as stacking the deck and is not a part of the ideals of democracy. As a result, the winner of your polls may be one preferred by a true majority and then again, it may not. We may never know the truth.

NKVD · Apr 11, 2007

730195 said:
Help me out here - which names were passed this way?

As a result, the winner of your polls may be one preferred by a true majority and then again, it may not. We may never know the truth.

we all talked about it in court and I asked the question. I've been told to not include it by judicial review. not just by one judge.

As to the names that was passed I cant believe you dont know where they are. where do you think we all discussed those names and people suggested names and seconded them?! you can also create a naming discussion about those things and post poll to replace those names by yours. i'll be glad. as long as they are named before we have gunships flying over those rivers

730195 · Apr 11, 2007

NKVD said:
we all talked about it in court and I asked the question. I've been told to not include it by judicial review. not just by one judge.

In looking through the thread, I am unable to find a justice telling you not to include it. I do find an unofficial opinion that it is not required:

Octavian X said:
This isn't an official opinion, but I think the laws are pretty clear. Nothing forces anyone to include a 'none of the above' option in any polls. It is, however, an optional regulatory option placed in the polls to prevent the citizenry from being stuck with a bad name - an option that citizens such as myself appreciate, and the lack of which some may find unfair.

and an agreement that it is not required:

ravensfire said:
Again, I'll concur with Octavian. It's not required to be present.

but I'm just not seeing multiple justices telling you not to include it.

We also see in this thread:

ravensfire said:
If they truly don't like the name or the process, they can use an initiative to force a change in the name or the process.

Which I have done.

==========================================

NKVD said:
As to the names that was passed I cant believe you dont know where they are. where do you think we all discussed those names and people suggested names and seconded them?! you can also create a naming discussion about those things and post poll to replace those names by yours. i'll be glad. as long as they are named before we have gunships flying over those rivers

Look, if I knew what you were talking about, I wouldn't be asking. You said, "all the names that passed without a poll" and I just don't know what names we have without a poll. I guess cities have been given temporary names until a poll is done because Civ won't let you leave it unnamed, but other than that I'm clueless here.

NKVD · Apr 11, 2007

opinions by judges are laws if you ask me. they are paid to have opinions and take decisions based on laws

not a judge but i'll quote anyway, i respect him

dutchfire said:
And some might want to repoll things when they find the polls unfair.

ravensfire said:
Again, I'll concur with Octavian. It's not required to be present. So yup, if there's just one name seconded, that's it if you so choose.

Again, I find no merit for a Judicial Review in this request.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice

Lockesdonkey said:
I concur also with the Public Defender's opinion in the concerns brought up by the Chief Cartographer with regard to naming that while interesting they bear no merit.

--Lockesdonkey
Judge Advocate of the State of Yasutan

and I was talking about the names of this thread...not cities

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=213582

730195 · Apr 11, 2007

NKVD said:
opinions by judges are laws if you ask me. they are paid to have opinions and take decisions based on laws

not a judge but i'll quote anyway, i respect him

I think you have misread the quotes you provided. You asked for "some sort of process so things cannot go un-named" and the justices "find no merit for a Judicial Review in this request". You asked for some clarification of NOTA and while you got a few answers, they also found no merit there. Which means that none of the things you asked for were things they thought they could fix for you. They didn't tell you not to include NOTA, they simply told you it was not required and that they couldn't help you further.

NKVD said:
and I was talking about the names of this thread...not cities

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=213582

I think I'm beginning to see your question here. You posted some names in a discussion thread and they were seconded. For geographical features where only one name was given, is it your contention that that name is now official? And you want to know if I object? Well, I doubt many people would consider these names official until polled, but I don't much care. What has bothered me all along is the use of the polling process in a way designed to prevent voters from expressing their preference.

grant2004 · Apr 12, 2007

730195 said:
By legal option, are you thinking of a court challenge or a new initiative that more precisely defines what is/not allowed/required/forbidden in a poll? If the former, I was dubious of such a venture as I don't know on what basis the court could make a decision. If the latter, it seemed to require more time and encompass many more issues. In either case, the course I took seemed much simpler and I tend to go for simplicity.

AFAICT, we have not had a poll on whether to require None of the above. We did discuss the possibility in Initiative: Include both Abstain *and* None of the Above, but I don't find any votes actually happening. The poll I referred to was how to invalidate a poll and the choices included the judicial approach and the NOTA approach. Since the judicial approach won, I was wondering if NOTA had therefore lost and if that meant NOTA could not be used to invalidate a poll.

Ah, apologies, when you referenced the discussion on whether none of the above should be included I assumed there had been a poll, bad assumption. However I believe the reasoning behind what I said still stand those who spoke out against None of the above did not intend for it to be forbidden, only not required.

As for the issue of taking the simple route, simple is good, but solving a problem definitively and for the long term is much better in my opinion, which could have been accomplished by judicial review or by an initiative.

Invalidate 2 polls

Shall both referenced polls be invalidated?

Invalidate both polls

Allow both polls to continue

Warlord

Member of the Opposition

Repair Guy

Cossack

General

Warlord

Citizen

Warlord

General

Warlord

General

Citizen

Cossack

Warlord

Warlord

Cossack

Warlord

Cossack

Warlord

Citizen

Similar threads