Ratification Poll for CoL Section F (Moderator Duties)

Shall we ratify the following as Section F of the Code of Laws?

Relevant discussion
Moderator Duties

Please vote using the following options:
Yes - I agree with this section
No - I do not agree with this section
Abstain - I have no preference

This poll shall run for 4 days.

-- Ravensfire

its good as is

I didn't know moderators where responsible for point 3. One can only insert this if the moderators have the ability to see who has voted what in which election. If so, I vote yes, if not: abstain.

For the records: it's yes for me, but I do like a confirmation from a moderator that they can.

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
I didn't know moderators where responsible for point 3. One can only insert this if the moderators have the ability to see who has voted what in which election. If so, I vote yes, if not: abstain.

For the records: it's yes for me, but I do like a confirmation from a moderator that they can.

Click to expand...

Read the discussion thread Rik - it's in there!

-- Ravensfire

I strongly support this ratification

I find it interesting that a game that exists at the whim of the forum moderators is writing legislation detailing the obligations of the very individuals that permit us to play.

If I'm not mistaken, FortyJ, the first legislation of this type and content was first written by a Moderator here in the Demogame forums (Shaitan).

That doesn't make it any less amusing. The entire concept strikes me as a bit presumptious - like POWs attempting to dictate to their captors what they expect from them, or an applicant attempting to dictate to the employer what behaviour he/she expects if employed.

However, to argue this point...

I do object strongly to anyone checking ballots under our current election process. Unless we are willing to do completely away with closed ballots or prohibit the mods from participating in the demogame, then I consider it a violation of privacy that they be entitled to see for whom any of us voted.

A mod, who is also a citizen, should not be entitled to see anyone's vote unless that privilege is granted to all citizens. To do otherwise betrays the confidentiality implied in a closed ballot vote.

Originally posted by FortyJ
That doesn't make it any less amusing. The entire concept strikes me as a bit presumptious - like POWs attempting to dictate to their captors what they expect from them, or an applicant attempting to dictate to the employer what behaviour he/she expects if employed.

However, to argue this point...

I do object strongly to anyone checking ballots under our current election process. Unless we are willing to do completely away with closed ballots or prohibit the mods from participating in the demogame, then I consider it a violation of privacy that they be entitled to see for whom any of us voted.

A mod, who is also a citizen should not be entitled to see who anyone voted for unless that privilege is granted to all citizens. To do otherwise betrays the confidentiality implied in a closed ballot vote.

Click to expand...

I believe the intent is to investigate only if there is suspected fraud. Although, the only fraud I could see that would warrant any type of punishment is using DLs to increase the vote count.

From a purely technical perspective, can we legislate away a power the mods have? From a realistic viewpoint, and from my personal opinion of the mods, if we did this, I'm pretty sure they would abide by that restriction unless something drastic happened.

-- Ravensfire

Yeah, I heard about those ballots they have in Florida, 40J. j/k

Seriously, I'm not real worried about my privacy in regards to what or how I've voted. Besides, I think all voting integrity issues are funneled through Thunderfall. So it's not like an everyday occurance.

I'm certainly not worried about my voting record, Cyc - neither in the DG or in Florida. In fact, I'd rather see open ballot voting (ie. stating your vote in a post) for the officials.

I also see no reason to legislate any responsibilities or restrictions on mods as those laws are somewhat useless. However, if a mod intends to act and participate as a citizen, then I do believe that he/she should adhere to a certain code of conduct.

This would include not banning inviduals that post contradictory opinions or criticisms of their own posts, not viewing other peoples votes in polls, and other restrictions as well. In my opinion, any mod that violates these restrictions would seriously betray the trust we have placed in them as citizens of the demogame and do considerable damage to the integrity of the game as well.

Originally posted by FortyJ
I'm certainly not worried about my voting record, Cyc - neither in the DG or in Florida. In fact, I'd rather see open ballot voting (ie. stating your vote in a post) for the officials.

I also see no reason to legislate any responsibilities or restrictions on mods as those laws are somewhat useless. However, if a mod intends to act and participate as a citizen, then I do believe that he/she should adhere to a certain code of conduct.

This would include not banning inviduals that post contradictory opinions or criticisms of their own posts, not viewing other peoples votes in polls, and other restrictions as well. In my opinion, any mod that violates these restrictions would seriously betray the trust we have placed in them as citizens of the demogame and do considerable damage to the integrity of the game as well.

Click to expand...

For the record, I am not intending to seek elected office during DG4 for these very reasons. However, if anyone still feels the need to write these restrictions into law, please feel free to do so. Keep in mind that this opinion is mine alone, and that I do not speak for eyrei.

I will also choose to view this post in the spirit it was written and not take offense, as I know it has nothing to do with my own personal conduct.

With all that said, let it be known that in order to preserve the practice of closed voting that is within the rights of all citizens, I will have Thunderfall investigate any voting activity that I believe to be fraudulent and will most likely be made aware of the results should fraud exist. My impartial use of this power should not deny me most rights as a citizen, including the right to vote.

I will vote Yes to this measure as I feel that neither myself or eyrei have done anything to warrant any restrictions. This can be amended at a later time if anyone sees fit.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi


For the record, I am not intending to seek elected office during DG4 for these very reasons. However, if anyone still feels the need to write these restrictions into law, please feel free to do so. Keep in mind that this opinion is mine alone, and that I do not speak for eyrei.

I will also choose to view this post in the spirit it was written and not take offense, as I know it has nothing to do with my own personal conduct.

With all that said, let it be known that in order to preserve the practice of closed voting that is within the rights of all citizens, I will have Thunderfall investigate any voting activity that I believe to be fraudulent and will most likely be made aware of the results should fraud exist. My impartial use of this power should not deny me most rights as a citizen, including the right to vote.

I will vote Yes to this measure as I feel that neither myself or eyrei have done anything to warrant any restrictions. This can be amended at a later time if anyone sees fit.

Click to expand...

I think we have great mods here in the Civ3 DG forums. I have no problems with your conduct either. I do have a problem with you not running for office, though (no matter what yer wife says. ). I'd like to see eyrei run again too. Please reconsider.

Donovan Zoi

If I had someone in mind, I would've mentioned him by name. I was, however, simply commenting on the difficulties mods face when taking an active part in the demogame. I strongly believe that you, eyrei, and Shaitain before you have all done an exceptional job in your roles as mods and citizens of the demogame.

Some of the restrictions I mentioned have been a running standard for the demogame, particularly the limitations on punitive actions on citizens. For example, if I had responded to one of your posts as you being "off your rocker", you would be remiss in punishing me if those comments were made in the context of a debate or discussion. However, if that comment was made in response to a mod-action you had made or if it was made in a different forum, it would certainly draw some form of punishment.

I suggested that we include the review of voting data as one of these self-imposed restrictions on moderator abilities. By accessing poll data that is not available to all citizens, a mod could gain an advantage over other individuals in future polls/elections.

I suggest this, because I would like to see the moderators take a more active role and be able to enjoy the demogame as much as all citizens can. I just happen to think that instead of asking our mods to check our elections for voter fraud, we should be asking them to protect our privacy and not go prying into the election information.

That is, unless we switch to open ballots, which I think would be a most-positive step for the demogame.

ok, it's yes then.