Citizen's Initiative - The Polling Act of 4000 BC

[Hyronymus]

Citizen's Initiative - The Polling Act of 4000 BC

As polling is at the core of our decision-making process, some standards and requirements for polls must exist.

Polls with in-game or meta-game actionable items must follow the requirements. Polls that violate these standards and requirements will be deemed invalid and cannot be used in any decision making process, or used as justification for any action based on that poll. This determination will be made by the Judiciary.

Polls should follow the guidelines, but are not required to do so. The guidelines are there to help everyone make informed decisions.

Requirements

• All poll options and the initial post will be stated in a clear and neutral manner.
• Polls must explain how the results will be interpreted in the initial post. If the initial post does not, the single option with the most votes is deemed the winner. The interpretation may not change after 2 hours from the posting of the poll.
• Polls must contain in the initial post a summary of the question and the reason for the question.
• Polls will cover one and only one question.
• Polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days.
• Polls that cover an actionable item in the Civ 4 game or the DG meta-game are initiatives, and thus binding.
• Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by The Constitution.

Guidelines

• Poll options that are not immediately obvious should be explained in the initial post.
• Polls should contain a link to all relevant discussions in the initial post.
• Polls should be open for 4 days to allow everyone to vote.
• When making complicated decisions, polls should start at the general level (Do A or B), then get detailed (Do A in manner X or Do A in manner Y). Conditional polls are valid (If we decide to do A, do it in manner X or Y), and may be posted at the same time as the initial poll.
• Polls should be preceded by discussion, with a proposed poll posted in that discussion.

---------------
Ravensfire, I know you summarised this all into this perfectly readible text but I noticed it still hasn't reached the poll status - worse not even the official iniative status. I have no intention whatsoever to create a stir by "stealing" your hard labour but I need this initiave to link to for an initiave I'm writing now. The discussion stranded in the abstain epic (which now has it's own topic fortunately) and I think this may boast the original issue again: fair polling.

 

[donsig]

While I agree there is a need for a polling act I have some reservations about making such a sweeping initiative poll so soon. First of all, the guidelines are great but I do not see the point of placing them into an initiative. We pass initiatives and post polls so we can require something to be done.

Second, the first requirement is not enforceable because it is not objective. What is clear to one citizen in not always clear to another. Look at how DaveShack and I view things. The second requirement I am totally against. We need a uniform method of interpreting polls.

I really think we should finish the abstain / none of the above / how do we invalidate bad polls discussion before proceeding here.

 

[Octavian X]

I agree with donsig. The first product of this discussion should be a set options, with the end result a poll similar to how we chose which government we would proceed with.

We have, essentially, one choice to make - the abstention question really changes depending on how we go about invalidating polls. These are the options that have been considered to this point (so far as I know):

- via an elected official/committee that judges each poll on whether it followed the established guidelines - similar to the position of the Censor in the last DG
- via a mandatory option in the poll that invalidates its results should that option reach a certain threshold of approval
- or any other ideas

Let's hash out these options a little bit further (or come up with some new ones), then we'll post a poll to decide which one we want to pursue further. After that, we can write a comprehensive polling initiative for final passage.

 

[DaveShack]

Second, the first requirement is not enforceable because it is not objective. What is clear to one citizen in not always clear to another. Look at how DaveShack and I view things.

Subjective requirements are OK, as long as the person / people deciding if they have been met are trustworthy. Sure, any individual might disagree with the official(s) in charge of determining validity. If there is a case that the validating authority is unfair, we have adequate recourse. If someone still refuses to accept the validation ruling, there is a mechanism to handle that too.

The second requirement I am totally against. We need a uniform method of interpreting polls.

Sure, it's called most votes wins.

I really think we should finish the abstain / none of the above / how do we invalidate bad polls discussion before proceeding here.

There are at least two good options for invalidating polls. The OP says the Judiciary would have that responsibility. It's easy to identify an individual who by definition must be fair.

We have, essentially, one choice to make - the abstention question really changes depending on how we go about invalidating polls. These are the options that have been considered to this point (so far as I know):

- via an elected official/committee that judges each poll on whether it followed the established guidelines - similar to the position of the Censor in the last DG
- via a mandatory option in the poll that invalidates its results should that option reach a certain threshold of approval
- or any other ideas

I'm very against the "mandatory bad poll" option, which has at least these fatal flaws:

• A large number of the citizens might not know the poll is unfair, where an official would.
• If a threshold is used, it lets a very small number of people block progress by voting "invalid poll" instead of "no", when it becomes apparent there is no other way to prevent the poll from passing.
• If a large number of people vote and then the poll is found to be unfair, it might not be possible any more to meet the criteria to trigger the bad poll provision, because too few voters remain.
• A patently unfair poll could be invalidated immediately by an official, where it might be necessary to let the poll run its course before a percentage trigger invalidates it.
• Including "bad poll" as an option is begging people to start thinking of polls as inherently bad. If we want to encourage positive thought and improve morale, we need to foster an environment where it's assumed that we're good unless someone blows the whistle.

I could go on, but this is a good start.

 

[Hyronymus]

What I learnt in my psychology study is that making unobjective polls is unachievable. As donsig said himself: what may be clear to one person may still be fuzzy to someone else. But there is no way of preventing that when you make a poll. Even with the best intentions you are bound to formulate in a fuzzy way for someone in your intended audience. Can we please accept this truth and carry on. Really, there is no ultimate guide on formulating polls.

I know the abstain issue is still unsolved Octavian X but I don't see why we cannot formulate a preliminary polling act yet. Aren't these initiaves aimed at fitting them in with other decisions? And isn't that why this initiative didn't reach poll status yet?

I wish we could stop debating the obvious and except that abstain votes don't count towards any options and that majority wins. Again, it's common practise in statistics land to interpret polls this way. Why do we even want to create special cases ?!

 

[fed1943]

I agree with Hyronymus proposal.

And about valid/invalid polls I go for the first option of OctavaianX post,

that is, an elected comitee to look at; and I think this "elected comitee" must

be the Judiciary itself.

Not to forget that the validity/invalidity (or fairness/unfairness) of the poll is in

itself, not in the votes, so Judiciary must act as fast as possible when the

poll is posted.

Best regards,

 

[Hyronymus]

I agree with Hyronymus proposal.
And about valid/invalid polls I go for the first option of OctavaianX post,
that is, an elected comitee to look at; and I think this "elected comitee" must
be the Judiciary itself.

I cannot recall I read that in Octavian X's post but I think that opens the way for a completely different approach of revoking initiatives. Instead of starting a topic, citizens (or citizen groups) ask the Judiciary to look at an initiative (poll) they feel is unfair. This can be done in private or public but the Judiciary will post that they are investigating an initiave (poll). This post is followed by a post containing the (as swift as possible) ruling.

 

[donsig]

I know the abstain issue is still unsolved...

Well, if the current results of the abstain poll hold up then abstain will not count. I see no reason now for including abstain in polls. It only serves to muck up the poll result recentages.

I agree with donsig. The first product of this discussion should be a set options, with the end result a poll similar to how we chose which government we would proceed with.

I dunno. That poll worked only because a real majority settled on one choice. It could have been a nightmare had it been a plurality decision. I think we're better off discussing and polling the individual parts of this separately - then it can be bundled and packed as a whole for display purposes. We currently have a good poll up about abstain. As long as a real majority settles that question we can move on with polling acts that include that result. I think we should try to keep it simple and stick to two option polls for now.

We have, essentially, one choice to make - the abstention question really changes depending on how we go about invalidating polls.

Well, there are two big choices left. The first you nailed: how do we invalidate polls. The second is: do we make plurality decisons binding.

These are the options that have been considered to this point (so far as I know):
- via an elected official/committee that judges each poll on whether it followed the established guidelines - similar to the position of the Censor in the last DG
- via a mandatory option in the poll that invalidates its results should that option reach a certain threshold of approval
- or any other ideas

The first two ptions are not mutually exclusive so there is no reason we can't allow both mechanisms.

Subjective requirements are OK, as long as the person / people deciding if they have been met are trustworthy. Sure, any individual might disagree with the official(s) in charge of determining validity. If there is a case that the validating authority is unfair, we have adequate recourse. If someone still refuses to accept the validation ruling, there is a mechanism to handle that too.

It's not just a matter of being trustworthy. It's also a matter of being competent. Election by the masses guarantees neither trustworthyness nor competence. If it did we wouldn't need a polling act because our officials would always post fair polls and follow the will of the people. What recourse do we have if validating authority is unfair? We had a whole game of that crap last time and you were one of the ones being unfair despite the fact that you are both trustworthy and competent. We usually have recourse to the judiciary but if they are the committee invalidating polls then we have to go to the judiciary to rectify problems with the judiciary. Anyone familiar with the cases we've had of using the judiciary to validate their own election or appointment know how I feel about that sort of thing. What mechanism is there available someone who refuses to accept the validation ruling? There are two choices: 1) live with a bad ruling or 2) keep plugging away at it till the poor decision is revealed as such. I went through this last game with private polling. There is no mechanism DaveShack and you know it. Stop misleading the players of this game.

Sure, it's called most votes wins.

That's debateable and we need another discussion about whether plurality decisions shoudl be binding.

There are at least two good options for invalidating polls. The OP says the Judiciary would have that responsibility. It's easy to identify an individual who by definition must be fair.

People are not fair by definition DaveShack. You're talking crazy now. But I guess that's to be expected now that you are part of the Brotherhood of Moderators. By definition all CivFanatics moderators are fair, impartial and perfect. I forgot.

I'm very against the "mandatory bad poll" option, which has at least these fatal flaws ... I could go on, but this is a good start.

So is this where I should list all the problems with having a trustworthy person or committee going around invalidating polls? Why don't you do a little exercise for me DaveSahck. Go get a piece of paper and a pen or pencil. Fold the paper in half and write invalidate by trustworty person on one half and invalidate by internal poll votes on the other half. Divide these halves in half so you have a benefits and problems column for each method. Now list the various problems and benefits of each method in the proper column. Then post it. If you end up with one column that is blank let us know. If not then why not take a lesson from the private versus public polls debate. Both private and public polls have benefits and drawbacks. The great thing is, we don't have to make a global choice of one over the other. We can allow both. We could set up a mechanism whereby the judiciary (or someother body) invalidates polls and another mechanism whereby voters can invalidate a poll through voting in the poll. Do you see a major problem with doing this?

 

[Hyronymus]

Gah, stop it! All of you.

Yes, there is no error-free solution for invalidating initiatives. Either a mandatory invalidate poll option or a committee are flawable. But if we have a Judiciary why not give them the power to investigate the validity of initiatives? If we get suspicious of the Judiciary we can always overthrow them, can't we?

 

[ravensfire]

I dunno. That poll worked only because a real majority settled on one choice. It could have been a nightmare had it been a plurality decision.

Nope! That poll was setup to require a majority decision. If there hadn't been a majority decision, a run-off would have been conducted. That decision was important enough that a majority decision was required.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

What recourse do we have if validating authority is unfair? We had a whole game of that crap last time and you were one of the ones being unfair despite the fact that you are both trustworthy and competent.

There are a range of options to deal with the validating authority, including judicial action, an initiative to change the authority, and if necessary a ban for the authority. I agree that some actions of some validating authorities last game were unfair. I don't think that I took any official actions which were unfair. I did make some arguments for a position which turned out to be unfounded -- that's a mistake, it's not being unfair.

What mechanism is there available someone who refuses to accept the validation ruling? There are two choices: 1) live with a bad ruling or 2) keep plugging away at it till the poor decision is revealed as such. I went through this last game with private polling. There is no mechanism DaveShack and you know it. Stop misleading the players of this game.

Someone pushes that button with the exclamation point inside a triangle. Someone else acts, or not, depending on circumstances. Like it or not, there are higher rules here. If it's a behaviour issue, those rules apply. If it's merely a disagreement, they don't apply as long as the disagreement remains civil.

Last game, you finally made a compelling argument on private polling, after a few months of unsuccessful attempts based on less compelling arguments. I agreed with your position immediately, once pointed to evidence for that position.

The obvious answer is to make a better argument instead of repeating the same one.

People are not fair by definition DaveShack. You're talking crazy now. But I guess that's to be expected now that you are part of the Brotherhood of Moderators. By definition all CivFanatics moderators are fair, impartial and perfect. I forgot.

I'm not going to do anything with this statement, but I can't say what other mods might do.

The great thing is, we don't have to make a global choice of one over the other. We can allow both. We could set up a mechanism whereby the judiciary (or someother body) invalidates polls and another mechanism whereby voters can invalidate a poll through voting in the poll. Do you see a major problem with doing this?

So far I don't see any feasible way to reliably invalidate every unfair poll through voting in the poll. See my previous post for a list of reasons this would not work. If there are conditions where the poll would slip through, as I believe there are, then using the voting in the poll method adds complexity (additional required poll option) but doesn't solve the problem. Complexity is bad for demogames, see last game and Civ3 DG6 for examples.

What about the even simpler option of posting "I object" in the poll thread? The originator can either post a new poll or let the poll continue. If the poll continues, its results are put on hold pending review.

Also we should discuss how to handle abuses of an objection system, either in the form of a poll option or via posting an objection. Either one is subject to the danger that someone who disagrees with the result of the poll could object to a valid and fair poll just to derail its result.

 

[Hyronymus]

Frankly, I'm annoyed at the endless creation of Nation name and City name polls and the arguments that polls are not created validly. On top of that, we have discussed the status of Abstain, including Abstain and None of the above in polls and how to invalidate polls. Even pluarilty decisions as binding have been discussed but we have still not established a "template" for polls. That's why I dig up this topic and urge everyone to re-consider this initiative.

Let's stop wasting time by running from poll to poll and let's stop arguing that polls are unfair.

As I'm heading out in a few minutes I haven't had time to update the initiative in the first post with the outcome of polls concerning polls that have been created since February 25th. Feel free to point me to them though and I'll do my best to include them in the initiative this (GMT +1) evening.

 

[Hyronymus]

*BUMP*

Please read through the posts before the *BUMP* mark and then comment.

 

[Strider]

My suggestions:

Move "Polls should contain a link to all relevant discussion" from the guidelines to the requirements.

Add "A poll must state clearly when it closes, if at all." to the requirements.

Move "Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by The Constitution." from the requirements down to the guidelines.

 

[DaveShack]

Several of these issues have been resolved as individual initiatives.

Plurality results are binding unless the poll states otherwise.
Votes for abstain (and other non-answers) do not count towards a plurality vote.

I disagree with moving links to all discussions to the requirements. Not all discussions which seem to touch on a subject are relevant, but it would be far too easy to claim invalidation based on a missing link to such a discussion. It's also a lot of work to track down all discussions which mention a topic and decide if they are relevant.

The poll itself states when it closes, most of the time. Duplicating that information in the OP is wasteful.

Edit: Requirements should be reserved for things which identify polls which are probably invalid. Guidelines should be for things which might reveal an invalid poll, if reasonable examination of the poll shows it is crafted to be unfair or misleading.

 

[Provolution]

Why not dig up all the work done on polling standards from Civ3 Demogames, these are all written crystal clear and will do the job. I can see no evolution in the democracy part of the demogame, but less cursing and swearing and a better game engine. Just bring them up and save us the hassle.

 

[ravensfire]

Provo - they aren't as crystal clear as you think.

You're also welcome to dig them up and post them.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Hyronymus]

My suggestions:

Move "Polls should contain a link to all relevant discussion" from the guidelines to the requirements.

Add "A poll must state clearly when it closes, if at all." to the requirements.

Move "Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by The Constitution." from the requirements down to the guidelines.

Consider it added but about the moving:

Edit: Requirements should be reserved for things which identify polls which are probably invalid. Guidelines should be for things which might reveal an invalid poll, if reasonable examination of the poll shows it is crafted to be unfair or misleading.

I think that's an excellent division to make, DaveShack!


Citizen's Initiative - Polling Act [draft 3, amended July 9th 2007]


Why is a polling act needed?
Polls form the core of the Demogames' decision-making process. To ensure fair polling requirements for polls must be adapted by the Officials, Designated Players and Citizens. Said requirements give the Yasutan Supreme Court a powerful tool to evaluate polls and declare them valid or invalid.


Poll requirements
Poll requirements are poll properties that enable Officials, Designated Players and Citizens to identify an invalid poll. If one or more of the following poll requirements are omitted the poll is invalid.

• The initial post must be stated in a clear and neutral manner, giving a summary of the reason for the poll
• The poll question and poll options must be stated in a clear and neutral manner
• Polls must explain how the results will be interpreted in the initial post. If the initial post does not explain this, the single option with the most votes is deemed the winner. The interpretation may not change after 2 hours from the posting of the poll
• Polls cover one and only one question
• Polls must be open for a minimum of 2 days
• Polls that cover an actionable item in the Civ 4 game or the Demogame meta-game are initiatives, and thus binding
• Polls may be public or private at the poster's discretion, unless mandated otherwise by our Constitution

Invalid polls, whether votes have been cast in them or not, cannot be used in any decision making process, or used as justification for any action based on that poll. The validity of polls will be reviewed by the Yasutan Supreme Court, as our Constitution proscribes.


Poll guidelines
To further help the understanding of polls the following guidelines are suggested to the poll maker. Not following the guidelines does not cause a poll to be invalid.

• Poll options that are not immediately obvious should be explained in the initial post
• Polls should contain a link to all relevant discussions in the initial post
• When making complicated decisions, polls should start at the general level (Do A or B), then get detailed (Do A in manner X or Do A in manner Y). Conditional polls are valid (If we decide to do A, do it in manner X or Y), and may be posted at the same time as the initial poll
• Polls should be preceded by discussion, with a proposed poll posted in that discussion

Plurality votes and Abstain
The issue on plurality votes has been succesfully tried in the http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=211395Binding Plurality Poll Act. If Abstain votes should count towards the poll result has been succesfully tried in The Status of Abstain.

---------------
Changes in draft 3:
Rewrote the entire Act and added a section on plurality votes and abstain.
---------------

Why not dig up all the work done on polling standards from Civ3 Demogames, these are all written crystal clear and will do the job. I can see no evolution in the democracy part of the demogame, but less cursing and swearing and a better game engine. Just bring them up and save us the hassle.

Be my guest .

 

[DaveShack]

That's a good start.

I would like us to allow salvage of an otherwise good poll which a minority argues is unclear. In particular, "clear and neutral" is very subjective, and it is obvious from the events of the past few days that it is quite possible to see objections to a poll where most of the people know what the poll means, but a few find a technicality in it.

How about:

Poll requirements are poll properties that enable Officials, Designated Players and Citizens to identify an invalid poll. If one or more of the following poll requirements are omitted the poll may be found to be invalid.

 

[Hyronymus]

I think you have a good point there. It ties in with mentioning the Yasutan Supreme Court later in the act.