Citizen discussion: amending section 8 of the CoL

[donsig]

The confirmation clause of section 8 could be improved.

The poll length is too short for such an important poll. We need to ensure confirmation poll are open long enough so everyone has a chance to vote on them if they want. Having a two day poll makes it possible to post a confirmation poll on the weekend disenfranchising forum members who do not have weekend access.

The poll question should directly ask if the appointment should be confirmed, not whether so and so should serve as such and such.

Finally, I don't know what a majority excluding abstain is so why don't we just say that more no votes than yes votes reverses the appointment?

The clause in question currently reads (sections to be deleted in italics):

VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should <citizen name> serve as <office>?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll should last for 48 hours. If a majority of citizens who vote, excluding abstain, vote no, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term.

Proposed clause (sections to be added in bold):

VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should the appointment of <citizen name> as <office> be confirmed?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll must last for 4 days. If more no votes are cast than yes votes, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term.

After discussion, this amendmend will be forwarded to the judiciary for review and then will be put to a vote.

 

[Nobody]

Isnt strider trying some big change thing why not just tak it on too that

 

[Methos]

Isnt strider trying some big change thing why not just tak it on too that

Because there's still a chance that Strider's proposal will fail in the poll. Plus, even if it does pass it could be a couple more months until it does. Might as well work on the one we have now until we know for certain things will change.

 

[robboo]

Lets fix the problem first, Striders thing could flop. There will be no need for Striders CoL if we fix this one. Why start over fixing loopholes.


Sounds good....ONe question why did you set it at 4 days. I know else where in the CoL it says that a poll should be open for at least 48 hours but 72 hours is suggested. Why not maintain that time line to make the polling laws consistent.

 

[DaveShack]

I will vote no if it's 4 days, and yes if it's either 2 or 3 days. The only plausible reason to make it 4 days is a blatant attempt to slow the game down by paralyzing us for that extra 1 or 2 days. Also this amendment fails to fix two of the known shortcomings of the current law, the timeframe within which a confirmation poll is allowed, and what happens during the confirmation process.

We're here to have fun, folks. Appointments should be easy to make, people should be assumed to be qualified and acceptable for an office unless a majority takes action, and we need to stop throwing roadblocks in the game.

To make it easy I'll post a new version with both things fixed.

VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office within 48 hours of the appointment. The appointee holds the office and is free to exercize the full powers of the office under the assumption a confirmation poll, if posted, will be in the affirmative. This is a private poll, asking the question "Should the appointment of <citizen name> as <office> be confirmed?", with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll must last for 3 days. If more no votes are cast than yes votes, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term.

 

[robboo]

I like DaveShack's. No reading between the lines and defines a other limit for the time at which a poll can start.

 

[GeorgeOP]

I put in the part about Nos plus Abstains because that would mean a majority did not vote to confirm the appoitment. Just a personal preference.

I agree that 4 days is too long. I was trying to streamline the process, make it easier to get people into the positions, and get on with the game.

 

[donsig]

I agree that 4 days is too long. I was trying to streamline the process, make it easier to get people into the positions, and get on with the game.

If we go with DaveShack's wording that allows the appointee to exercise authority in the appointed office while the confirmation process is going on then why does it matter how long the process takes? We could let the poll stay open for a week without *slowing the game*.

It is a good idea to include a time frame for posting a confirmation poll but 48 hours is too short! That allows someone to make an appointment on a Friday night and come Monday morning it's a done deal - and anyone who took the weekend off does not get a say in it. Again, if we're going to allow the appointee to step right in upon the appointment and go to work we can allow 4 days to post the poll and another 4 days to let it run. Here's a compromise:

VIA. Any citizen may post a confirmation poll for an appointment to a Vacant office within 72 hours of the appointment. This must be a private poll, asking the question "Should the appointment of <citizen name> as <office> be confirmed, with the options Yes, No and Abstain. This poll must last for 4 days. If the poll closes with more no votes than yes votes, the appointment is reversed. This citizen may not be appointed to that office again that term. The appointee holds the office and is free to exercize the full powers of the office until such time as the appointment is reversed.

 

[robboo]

If we go with DaveShack's wording that allows the appointee to exercise authority in the appointed office while the confirmation process is going on then why does it matter how long the process takes? We could let the poll stay open for a week without *slowing the game*.
[/b]

If it were me undergoing a confirmation poll..I would do the bare minimum for my job. For example..start the required thread but request no TCs during the poll. BUT if you then make the poll for too long then I have no choice but to give orders if a TC takes place.

 

[robboo]

ALso....

Donsig newer version "within 3 days" and then "4 day poll"..7 total

DaveShack version "within 2 days" and then "3 day poll"...5 days total.

In a typical month we have barely 30 days for TCs. If you then handcuff a office for almost 23% of the term not counting the 3 days to get the appointment started which would bring thats up to a full third of the term.

Daves woud be 16% of the term for confirmation and at most 26% of the term for appoinment time.


2-3 days make a huge difference and longer polls...cause people to lose interest. We as a society are a "right now" society and dont like to wait. I bet if we had a TC every 4 days people would not lose interest as fast.

I think one is really slow...think if the poll does come back with an unconfirmed...it would be almost impossible to fill it using your system. That is game slowing.

 

[DaveShack]

2-3 days make a huge difference and longer polls...cause people to lose interest. We as a society are a "right now" society and dont like to wait. I bet if we had a TC every 4 days people would not lose interest as fast.

That is the best way I've ever heard this said. Certain people (they know who they are) treat this game like they are making life and death decisions that need full deliberation and six different kinds of protection from official abuses. (ok, maybe an exaggeration, maybe not )

The same individual who has argued for years that we should have fewer rules (when he's in charge) is now saying we need more rules. (maybe because he's not in charge?? )

We're here to have fun, not to do mortal combat with each other. If we must have a rule like this, make it easy.

 

[robboo]

I have an idea for you donsig...how about we use our citizens thoughts on this. Post an opinion poll first with the two versions then let the majority decide. Then use that to write the new amendment. Are you willing to let the majority dictate the game?

 

[Swissempire]

I think that is a perfect idea robboo, and i throw my support behind Daveshack's proposal.

 

[ravensfire]

Polls have been posted!

How long after an appointment may a confirmation poll be posted?

How long should the duration of a confirmation poll be?

Now that the polls are up, please direct discussion to the remainder of the amendment, and we'll be ready to plug in the results in 2 days, and get this issue resolved.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

I have an idea for you donsig...how about we use our citizens thoughts on this. Post an opinion poll first with the two versions then let the majority decide. Then use that to write the new amendment. Are you willing to let the majority dictate the game?

Sure but the majority is not going to dictate what I want. And if I'm the one writing the amendment then I'm writing it as I see fit. You are all free to vote it up or down as you see fit. Hey, you know what? I'll even give you FOUR DAYS to vote and I'll make it a PRIVATE POLL so you can vote against it and I'll never know! Anyone who does not like the proposals I make can write their own amendment.

@DaveShack: I am not saying we need more rules. I am not proposing new rules. I am trying to improve the ones we have without scrapping the whole lot. More importantly I am trying to bring our laws in line with the comcepts we have in our constitution. Many of the same concepts I have been fighting to uphold for years. Perhaps it's time you started fighting for some of them.

 

[DaveShack]

I am not saying we need more rules. I am not proposing new rules. I am trying to improve the ones we have without scrapping the whole lot.

You're right, what I said didn't correctly reflect my meaning.

Increasing the length of polls makes it feel like the rules relating to those polls are more restrictive. In a time when many people are chafing against rules, and indignant about delays, it seems very counter-intuitive to see someone who wanted a more easygoing ruleset making proposals about more restrictive rules which force longer delays.

Does that make more sense?

 

[donsig]

No, it doesn't make more sense. I'm not asking for more restrictive rules. I'm still fighting against the restrictive rules. I'm fighting against short polls that restrict our ability to take a weekend off without missing something as important as a confirmation poll. I'm fighting against public polls that restrict our ability to vote the way we see fit without fear of having someone else point to us and say, hey you voted NO!.

The proposals I've made cause no delays. It was suggested that this very proposed amendment contain wording to the effect that an appointee IS the officeholder until a confirmation is reversed. The wording was included. Once you put that in there are NO DELAYS no matter how long we leave the confirmation poll open. I'm not trying to cause delays, I just want to allow everyone time to vote on important issues.

 

[Swissempire]

If you vote, you should have a reason. If someone truns to me and says "YOU
VOTED NO!!!"

I would simply say"Yes, and here is why"

 

[Methos]

If you vote, you should have a reason. If someone truns to me and says "YOU
VOTED NO!!!"

I would simply say"Yes, and here is why"

True, you should have a reason, but nothing states you have to give a reason why. It's that persons choice on whether they choose to give that reason.

 

[Swissempire]

If they don't wish to present reasoning, then they may ignore the poster