Citizen's Initiative: DP use of incomplete poll results

[grant2004]

The most recent turnchat has pointed out a problem in our current laws, a DP may use incomplete poll results for the basis of actions in a TC, in the past this has been a good practice because polls had a large majority when the DP used them in the turnchat, however the most recent turnchat saw the use of a tied poll, and thus created an uproar from the poll's originator suggesting the TC should have been delayed.

In my opinion polls shouldn't have much ability to slow down TCs we already have them slow enough, but we need to make sure that votes count, therefore I will propose the following initiative.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Citizen's Initiative: Incomplete Poll Use in Turnchats

For a DP to use an incomplete poll in a turnchat there must be at least a 15 percentage point difference between the majority and it's next closest option.

If there is less than a 15 percentage point majority, the DP must delay the turnchat until either a 15 percentage point majority is achieved, and the incomplete results may be used, or the poll closes cementing the results.

In order to prevent polls from needlessly delaying the TC:

No poll may be scheduled to close more than 24 hours after a scheduled turnchat, if such a poll exists incomplete results may be used from it at any difference in vote totals. (including ties) or the poll may be ignored at the discretion of the DP.

If a turnchat is rescheduled due to an incomplete poll, no new polls shall be created which end after the scheduled start of a turnchat, any such polls created will be ignored by the DP.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm certain that this initiative is imperfect, please post your comments and criticisms so that we can get a law in place before the next poll with tied results at the start of a TC.

Also please note that I fully support the actions of Joe Harker, as they were in complete compliance with existing laws and conventions, this proposal should not be considered an attack on his conduct.

 

[Provolution]

I would say 20 % difference, to avoid shoulder to shoulder lobby contests.

 

[Methos]

When setting up a poll that will obviously close after a TC has begun, I propose that the poll creator has to state it in his first post and that the votes will be counted from the exact time of the start of the TC. A screenshot would be required.

I also feel that the DP should post their TCIT in plenty of time, so that anyone who wishes to create a poll has the knowledge of when their poll needs to end.

 

[dutchfire]

If you want a poll to be dealt with, post in the TCIT (before the TC happens ) that you'd like an extension.

In my opinion, a Designated Player should be able to play the save without ever looking outside of the TCIT thread.

 

[Hyronymus]

If you don't want to risk incomplete polls why not say that turn chats cannot be held sooner than 4 days since the previous turnchat? That leaves 2 days discussion time and 2 days poll time.

 

[DaveShack]

With time zones, the time of day for the turnchat and active time for the citizen are not in sync. This requires up to a day more lead time for opening polls to end before the turnchat.

Too slow and people twiddle their thumbs between play sessions. If we have to choose between 46 hours and 70 hours, I'd much rather the poll be 2 hours short than take the extra day. Since the forum software doesn't let us choose a specific time to end the poll, we have to think of polls which extend beyond the start of play.

 

[Hyronymus]

I really ask you to look at the past schemes for TC sessions. There really aren't that many TC sessions that were followed-up within 4 days.

 

[Nobody]

isnt it the officals jobs to set instuctions? i think it would be better for the law to force officals to put valid instuctions (from the polls) in the turn chat thread. And the dp to just follow the thread.

 

[DaveShack]

I really ask you to look at the past schemes for TC sessions. There really aren't that many TC sessions that were followed-up within 4 days.

We discussed how often play sessions should be, and the discussion centered on playing every 5 days with a preference for 4 days when possible. We should be looking to improve our actual speed of play towards the desired speed.

Here is my alternative, in prose format. Let's discuss it.

We should put the onus on the poll's originator. If use of a partial result is expected, then the poll itself can say it closes when play begins. If the originator wants the poll to hold play then the originator needs to negotiate a reschedule with the DP. To prevent overuse of rescheduling as a stalling tactic, the reschedule can be denied by the DP (and appealed by the pollster to the judiciary) or the reschedule can be appealed to the judiciary. The default for polls which say nothing about the conflict between end date and play session schedule are decided in favor of playing on time. The DP can voluntarily reschedule to accomadate unfinished polls.

 

[Provolution]

Above the structuring of polls as an isolated instance.

I think organization of the week is key here, for a 5 day processing of TC reporting, discussion, mock polls, polls and instructions, which is the very value chain of knowledge creation, knowledge dissemination and knowledge output (instructions), we need to agree on how to partition these 5 days in a fair and orderly manner.

The Genesis of a new TC Week (5 days)

TC reporting-transcending into early phase analysis (Day 1)
Proposal of ideas and game research (Day 2)
Presentation of viable options in mock polls and fine tuning of options (Day 3)
Presentation of 2-day official poll with presented options (Day 4)
Closing of 2 day official poll and posting of instructions (Day 5).

We should also target 12-13 long turns, where we research one long research goal and a shorter one, which would stimulate the pace of the game.

 

[Hyronymus]

I agree to Provolution's suggestion but it won't hurt if people expressed the nature (needs to be finished/may be unfisnishe) of their polls in the first post.

 

[fed1943]

IMO, polls shall never delay chats.

Chat's time must be known and polls submited according.

Unless the subject of the poll doesn't concern the next chat, a poll closes

when the chat begins, if not closed before.

A good rule shall be minimum time to the pool; so, if posted too late to get

said time until begin of chat is not binding.

Best regards,

 

[donsig]

This is a well intentioned thing and a very good discussion but I do not think a rule should be made for this. It is very difficult to make a rule that would achieve the desired results without allowing for abuse. What's to stop someone from posting a last minute poll and casting one vote to make a 1-0 temporary result?

Another problem would be legislating when polls could be posted. If a game play session is scheduled are we to assume no polls can be posted two days prior to the scheduled time? Or do we allow polls to be posted and subject these to special rules (like the 15% rule in the first post)? (BTW, I think basing rules on percentages without also specifying a minimum number of votes is asking for trouble.) Special rules for some polls makes me think either polling will be stifled and / or abused. Also, IIRC, the polls in question were posted while a stay on play was already in effect and there was no set date and time for the held up game play session. Under these circumstances are citizens and officials not to post polls? What happens to polls posted under a stay after the stay is listed? The are questions that would have to be answered by an legislation.

The controversy that led to this discussion would have been avoided had a few people in authority exercised some restraint and discretion. All that was needed was a few more hours for some polls to close. Given the controversial nature of the polls and their close votes it should have been a no-brainer to both the judiciary and DP to hold off on play. I am heartened that one member of the judicary saw fit to vote to continue the stay. Perhaps what we need (if we can't give those in authority some common sense) is a better way to put holds on play in these circumstances.

 

[DaveShack]

donsig,

Thanks for the good, constructive comments! In particular...

Perhaps what we need is a better way to put holds on play in these circumstances.

If the originator wants the poll to hold play then the originator needs to negotiate a reschedule with the DP. To prevent overuse of rescheduling as a stalling tactic, the reschedule can be denied by the DP (and appealed by the pollster to the judiciary) or the reschedule can be appealed to the judiciary. The default for polls which say nothing about the conflict between end date and play session schedule are decided in favor of playing on time. The DP can voluntarily reschedule to accommodate unfinished polls.

I think we agree, at least in principle, what needs to be done. Is my suggestion workable, or too cumbersome? I don't want a solution which injures the DP by intruding on RL, but it can't injure the people by denying their voice either.

 

[donsig]

I think we agree, at least in principle, what needs to be done. Is my suggestion workable, or too cumbersome? I don't want a solution which injures the DP by intruding on RL, but it can't injure the people by denying their voice either.

I think your suggestion is very good since it first allows for the pollster and DP to try to work things out. The more that can be handled that way, the better. I do think better record keeping has to be made of stays. This last stay was put on before my poll was posted. Since there was already a stay why would I negotiate one? Also, I had no idea when play was to resume so no idea I'd need a stay! Perhaps, stays should not be open ended but have exact time limits (that could of course be extended by some process if need be.) So I guess you have to make it clear that there can be multiple stays in practice. The judiciary may put one in place about something and then there may be an unrelated poll that requires one that would have to be negotiated separately. The point is the judicary completing its stay does not lift the poll's stay and visa-versa.


The only other suggestion I would make would be two fold: 1) Allow one member of the judicary to enforce a stay rather than a majority vote of the judiciary. If this had been in place we'd have had a stay till the longbow polls closed. 2) Give another mechanism for a stay direct to the citizens. Either a minimum # calling for a stay (say, 3 or 5) or the option to post a stay poll. Such a poll could be regulated like the old confirmation polls we once had. A prescribed length, prescribed wording, etc. and an automatic stay while that poll is open (and beyond that if citizens voted for the stay).

 

[fed1943]

Yes, the last posts are very constructive and show good faith.

So,please, allow me to say this:

The question centers about "time". The subjects are "chat" and "poll".

Poll is the trigger and chat the "place" where the effects go to.

Experience says it's much more easy to think first the last thing, that is, the

chat.

Rule first the chat timings: its real time, the advice from DP, the instructions.

After (logical after, can be at the same true time) rule the poll timings:

real minimum time and relative minimum time to the chat it shall possibly

concern.

Best regards,

 

[ori]

If the originator wants the poll to hold play then the originator needs to negotiate a reschedule with the DP. To prevent overuse of rescheduling as a stalling tactic, the reschedule can be denied by the DP (and appealed by the pollster to the judiciary) or the reschedule can be appealed to the judiciary. The default for polls which say nothing about the conflict between end date and play session schedule are decided in favor of playing on time. The DP can voluntarily reschedule to accomadate unfinished polls.

The only other suggestion I would make would be two fold: 1) Allow one member of the judicary to enforce a stay rather than a majority vote of the judiciary. If this had been in place we'd have had a stay till the longbow polls closed. 2) Give another mechanism for a stay direct to the citizens. Either a minimum # calling for a stay (say, 3 or 5) or the option to post a stay poll. Such a poll could be regulated like the old confirmation polls we once had. A prescribed length, prescribed wording, etc. and an automatic stay while that poll is open (and beyond that if citizens voted for the stay).

This is an initiative I made up this morning before having my first - so its probably much too complex and overly bureaucratic but anyway, how about something like this:

A turnchat may be stayed
 a) by the Judiciary
 b) by the DP for the affected Turnchat
 c) by one member of the Judiciary upon request by another citizen
 d) by request of three citizens
 
Any stay has to be posted in the thread for the turnchat affected. 
This post has to include the reasons for the stay and the time this stay expires.
 
A stay issued under a) and b) may be extended for unlimited times and is not time limited.
A stay issued under c) may last for no more than 3 days and the same member of the Judiciary may only issue one stay per turnchat. 
A stay issued under d) may last for no more then 2 days and the same citizens may only request a stay once every term.
 
The Judiciary can vote to lift any stay in place at any time. 
Unless the Judiciary decides otherwise, the stay is lifted 24 hours after such a vote is made. 
Lifting of a stay including the time it takes effect has to be posted in the thread for the turnchat affected.

This would allow for the DP to schedule play in most cases and still leave a couple of possibilities for stays to be issued if the DP is unwilling to do so... Oh and the limits on the number of stays issued would be there to make sure we can actually play at some point...

 

[donsig]

This version is better though I do have some suggestions:

First of all, I find the phrase turn chat to be offensive and prolly wouldn't vote for any initiative that uses that term. Game play session is much better.

b) I'm not sure of the current rules, but doesn't the DP have some authority to schedule his or her own game play session? If so then rescheduling a game play session isn't really a stay is it? If this is correct then b should just be eliminated.

a) and c) are redundant. Just have one that says by one member of the judicary. No need to have a citizen request it because justices are citizens and can request stays themselves as citizens. This of course does not mean citizens can't request the judiciary to make a stay. I think the simple wording I suggest conveys the idea that a member of the judiciary has discretion as to whether to impose a stay or not.

d) is good but I think we need to specify (later in the rule) exactly when, where and how these posts can be made.

I think it is very bad to limit stays. What is the point of limiting citizens to one stay request per term? First of all, a request will not automatically result in a stay, second, there are many game play sessions in a term and many reasons why a stay would be needed. There should be no limits on stays since limits only allow one faction to out wait another in a controvery. Given the rush to play the save waiting would be a good tactic to get one's way. Knowing there are no limits to (reasonable) stays forces citizens and officials to try to work things out in good faith. The whole point of this rule is to ensure the stays are reasonable by vesting the power of stays in the judicary or a group of citizens rather than just one citizen who might just have a grudge.

The judiciary should not have the power to lift a stay. If the postponement is due to the DP then I do not think the judiciary should force the DP to play. If the stay was imposed by the judicary in the first place then they should have taken such care in imposing it that it need not be lifted prematurely. If the stay was imposed by three citizens then the judiciary should not overrule them. (The number required to impose a stay could be increased - how about 4?)

I'm not so sure the rule should specify the length of the stay. Most stays will probably be variable length - till the end of some poll. I think stays imposed by the judiciary should allow for the justice imposing the stay to set the period of the stay, and any justice would have the power to extend the stay if they saw the need to.

I think citizen imposed stays should work like this: A citizen requests a specific stay and then needs two (or whatever) more citizens to agree to the specific stay for it to be imposed. Any extensions would have to be requested anew and agreed to under the same rules (although a justice could of course exercise authority impose a longer stay).

 

[dutchfire]

This version is better though I do have some suggestions:

First of all, I find the phrase turn chat to be offensive and prolly wouldn't vote for any initiative that uses that term. Game play session is much better.

b) I'm not sure of the current rules, but doesn't the DP have some authority to schedule his or her own game play session? If so then rescheduling a game play session isn't really a stay is it? If this is correct then b should just be eliminated.

a) and c) are redundant. Just have one that says by one member of the judicary. No need to have a citizen request it because justices are citizens and can request stays themselves as citizens. This of course does not mean citizens can't request the judiciary to make a stay. I think the simple wording I suggest conveys the idea that a member of the judiciary has discretion as to whether to impose a stay or not.

d) is good but I think we need to specify (later in the rule) exactly when, where and how these posts can be made.

I think it is very bad to limit stays. What is the point of limiting citizens to one stay request per term? First of all, a request will not automatically result in a stay, second, there are many game play sessions in a term and many reasons why a stay would be needed. There should be no limits on stays since limits only allow one faction to out wait another in a controvery. Given the rush to play the save waiting would be a good tactic to get one's way. Knowing there are no limits to (reasonable) stays forces citizens and officials to try to work things out in good faith. The whole point of this rule is to ensure the stays are reasonable by vesting the power of stays in the judicary or a group of citizens rather than just one citizen who might just have a grudge.

The judiciary should not have the power to lift a stay. If the postponement is due to the DP then I do not think the judiciary should force the DP to play. If the stay was imposed by the judicary in the first place then they should have taken such care in imposing it that it need not be lifted prematurely. If the stay was imposed by three citizens then the judiciary should not overrule them. (The number required to impose a stay could be increased - how about 4?)

I'm not so sure the rule should specify the length of the stay. Most stays will probably be variable length - till the end of some poll. I think stays imposed by the judiciary should allow for the justice imposing the stay to set the period of the stay, and any justice would have the power to extend the stay if they saw the need to.

I think citizen imposed stays should work like this: A citizen requests a specific stay and then needs two (or whatever) more citizens to agree to the specific stay for it to be imposed. Any extensions would have to be requested anew and agreed to under the same rules (although a justice could of course exercise authority impose a longer stay).

b) Yes, he does AFAIK
c) I think the idea of C is to avoid one person holding up the entire game.

About the limits, perhaps have one (or more) credit to ask for a stay. If a stay you requested is granted by the judiciary, you keep your credit, if it's not granted, you lose your credit and can't ask for another request during your term. This prevents stalling, but does give people the option to make several legitimate requests.

 

[Provolution]

I think "Demogame Session" would the most correct wording. No need to have both "game" and "play" in the same word. Chat is out of the way.