Citizen polling restrictions - Discussion

[Eklektikos]

dis: You're very right that poll requests would need to be dealt with very soon after they're made. This is why I suggested the Judiciary for the job, since that's a 3 person department which should hopefully be able to give that kind of coverage.

 

[Shaitan]

Disorganizer - time requirements are a definite concern and you make an excellent point. The same argument supports the position that citizens should not have to run polls through the department leaders as it can cost valuable time. We did anticipate this and have developed separate quick poll standards to handle time sensitive issues. See the Polling standards (Code of Standards, v1.9, Section F, Point 4).

 

[disorganizer]

btw: i would never have a leader prevent me from posting a poll ;-) if a leader would have denied posting it, i would have had it posted myself to quick-win the result. if the result is there, you can invalidate it as much as you like, the result will be there.

its like in the court if you ask something or just state something, the other side can say what they want, the jury will have heard it.

another thing:
the areas of response must be VERY clearly defined if we regulate it. at the moment, i would not be able to tell the responsibility for some of the polls we had.

 

[Shaitan]

But in court you can be fined and jailed for doing so.

 

[disorganizer]

so impeach me! ;-)

i will go to jail for my free will. the president of the PPO will never rurrender to the suppression of any authority! (well, except the mods of course)

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by disorganizer

EDIT:
of course we should state somewhere that inofficial polls are not binding and therefor an impeachment footing on these types of polls would propably not come through (though, if the informational poll made a clear statement, lets say 80% for a option with otherwise valid poll, and this poll is disregarded, then the article stating that the leaders should act according to the will of citizenry could be triggered).

I don't think we should go down the path of making some unofficial polls official in some cases. It's too vague.

Either we should take the option of all polls apply, or just the one's posted by officials.

Bill
...in PDX, where we poll everyday...on the lunch menu

 

[Cyc]

After reading what's been posted here I am thinking of two options which may or may not have been discussed. They are not related ideas, but seem like interesting options to me.

If the Judiciary Dept., any member (with the chief having authority), could review new polls and post a statement in each poll, declaring its validity. The statement could also include whether the poll was informational or binding (according to the Judicial Dept.). This way all citizens (who read the posts attached to a poll) would know all the details about the poll through an official Dept.

If a citizen requests a poll from a leader, and then starts a poll, the Leader, as head of the department, can have the department adopt the poll, thus making the poll official (binding). If the Leader posted a statement of adopting the poll, it would eliminate the need of starting a second poll. I believe that people would vote the same whether a poll was binding or not. And if we have citizens who vote one way or the other because the poll is binding or not, maybe this would change their ways.

I think both of these methods would help our polling procedures in light of this discussion.

 

[donsig]

I'm even more extreme than disorganizer here. If I thought a poll was important enough I'd just post it.

Can the judiciary validate a poll before it has run it's due course? I'm not sure where we are at in the poll standards but I thought that for a poll to be valid it had to be open a minimum length of time and/or get a a certain level of votes. Or was that for the poll to be binding?

 

[Cyc]

HAHA! You're right, Donsig. In my statement about the Judicial Dept., the idea wouldn't cover quorum or minimum length. Sorry. Just a thought.

 

[Shaitan]

The judiciary could verify that a poll meets the polling standards though and slap a "seal of approval" on it. The judiciary could be responsible to check on polls posted to the poll registry thread. We're getting off topic for our sidebar though - this is meat for the main thread.

Based on the mini poll and discussion in that thread, I'd say we should just leave the restriction alone as it has not been a problem or get rid of the restriction entirely and reenact something appropriate if it becomes a problem. For simplicity I am recommending removing it.

Anyone care to second and carry my motion? Then we can move back to the Code thread.

 

[disorganizer]

i second removal, as it was never cared anyway.
it also conflicts with the "will of citizenry" parts, so the removal will be a good thing. nevertheless, if we really encounter massive problems not solvable by posting (senseless polls are normally ignored by citizens anyway) we could still put it in as a change in laws.

 

[Shaitan]

Could I get a third to carry the motion? Any dissenters should speak up too.

 

[Cyc]

If your motion is to remove "d", then I will third the motion.

 

[Shaitan]

Okay then. "D" is out of the working copy unless somebody else wants to champion it. Returning now to the Framing the COL thread...

 

[Eklektikos]

no argument from me

 

[donsig]

I would've seconded or thirded it if I had been in the forums...

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by donsig
I would've seconded or thirded it if I had been in the forums...

I know. I proxy voted for you in my mental tally.