Citizen's Initiative - The Polling Act of 4000 BC

[Provolution]

The samples are quite political, and still contested, and with the present power structure, I guess the system will continue to be quite arbitrary.

The polling policing of the Judge Advocate this term has been nothing but appalling, as there has been a continuous abuse of double standards in criticizing polls and invalidating them. In fact, I am more or less over the German Longbowman Coup, but not the subsequent handling of it.

For invalidation, I would rather look onto what the officials should place in the poll as minimum information (what type of vote wins the poll majority vs. plurality, duration, what happens if there is tie or less than 50 % for one option). There should also be rules for a mock poll lasting a two days on long term decisions (further turnchats) and one day for near term decisions.
The more rules, the less arbitrary treatment.

For Science, the minimum would be how many turns to research with the present technology and percentage research on science slider as well as secondary research goal. We should only poll research paths mentioned in a technology discussion. Each tc should have a technology discussion.

For Warlord, the minimum would be which war objectives are to be taken in a turnchat as well as the destinies for conquered cities. For contesting particular tactical moves, we rather use a vote of confidence/Coup. Otherwise it does not make sense to be a "military leader". Wars should not be detail-managed by committee, that is mob rule. Most people does not follow these debates, and I am certain that there is an interest in giving some basic power back to the warlord. If the warlord fails in a war, then coup him/her, that is much more fair than clipping away the needed authority to hold office.

There should be developed strict guidelines for Foreign Affairs as well, as well as for Governors.

There should be guidelines for polling locations of wonder-builds, and use of Great People.

All these guidelines should be crystal clear, fair and transparent, and polled.

We also need to agree on where and when the polls are allowed to be posted, and how long discussions should last.

The demand for documentation in polls should be equal to all, not selective.

 

[dutchfire]

The samples are quite political, and still contested, and with the present power structure, I guess the system will continue to be quite arbitrary.

The polling policing of the Judge Advocate this term has been nothing but appalling, as there has been a continuous abuse of double standards in criticizing polls and invalidating them. In fact, I am more or less over the German Longbowman Coup, but not the subsequent handling of it.

For invalidation, I would rather look onto what the officials should place in the poll as minimum information (what type of vote wins the poll majority vs. plurality, duration, what happens if there is tie or less than 50 % for one option). There should also be rules for a mock poll lasting a two days on long term decisions (further turnchats) and one day for near term decisions.
The more rules, the less arbitrary treatment.

For Science, the minimum would be how many turns to research with the present technology and percentage research on science slider as well as secondary research goal. We should only poll research paths mentioned in a technology discussion. Each tc should have a technology discussion.

For Warlord, the minimum would be which war objectives are to be taken in a turnchat as well as the destinies for conquered cities. For contesting particular tactical moves, we rather use a vote of confidence/Coup. Otherwise it does not make sense to be a "military leader". Wars should not be detail-managed by committee, that is mob rule. Most people does not follow these debates, and I am certain that there is an interest in giving some basic power back to the warlord. If the warlord fails in a war, then coup him/her, that is much more fair than clipping away the needed authority to hold office.

There should be developed strict guidelines for Foreign Affairs as well, as well as for Governors.

There should be guidelines for polling locations of wonder-builds, and use of Great People.

All these guidelines should be crystal clear, fair and transparent, and polled.

We also need to agree on where and when the polls are allowed to be posted, and how long discussions should last.

The demand for documentation in polls should be equal to all, not selective.

Having these kind of guidelines would be great, why not start up seperate discussion threads on these issues?

 

[DaveShack]

Much better, thanks.

The current constitution does not allow any limits on what a citizen may poll as an initiative. That is extremely clear, and I don't foresee enough people voting to change it.

Taking the science area as an easy example, it is true that all science polls should list in the OP the number of turns to research, as well as the positive and negative effects of the tech and perhaps what techs it leads to. Links don't really cut it for me. However when the poll is honest (but lacking this information) I'd rather use peer pressure than invalidation.

Invalidation should be reserved for cases where:

• The poll is trying to trick the people. Example would be the Liberalism poll leaving off a tech, possibly coupled with statements from the pollster showing it's not the pollster's choice and from the public saying it's a popular opinion.
• The people have so little information or such wrong information that it is impossible to make an informed choice.
• Other similar circumstances, determined subjectively by the invalidating authority.

 

[Provolution]

I think we can use a constitutional amendment or two, and see if it passes.
I have seen that happen before. I am certain it will not kill the game that we improve the constitution. No need to treat an ugly duckling like a dear baby.

Peer pressure is also mob rule. The problem with peer pressure, is that is based on pulling rank, one way or another. Rules would flatten the playing field, and everyone would be accountable to the same rules, not to the same people. This would make it more feasible to go for some solutions, as you are backed by fair rules, not by the temporary strongmen happening to read ones post and liking/disliking them. Peer pressure as we see it now, is this games feudalism, which the last terms development is an example of.

The constitution needs an amendment.

It is also hard to know which polls are honest these days, we rather agree on what they should have as a minimum. I am beyond the point trusting that the Judiciary, or someone else, will police these fairly.

Yes, the Liberalism Poll was a very bad one.

 

[DaveShack]

Yes, the Liberalism Poll was a very bad one.

Just to be clear, I was giving a hypothetical example where a poll would be invalid. While I don't like the lack of information, the current liberalism poll doesn't rise to the standard of invalid, in my opinion.

 

[Hyronymus]

Maybe not invalid at face value. But it is misleading, what is the consequence for that?

 

[HUSch]

Can you make this amendment:

Before you make a poll, you must make a discussion-fred for 2 days; so there is a discussion first and all citizens can give the necessary information.
Additional: Only an extra official can make the poll itself.

 

[DaveShack]

Maybe not invalid at face value. But it is misleading, what is the consequence for that?

If this comment is aimed at the current liberalism poll, I don't see anything misleading either.

 

[DaveShack]

Additional: Only an extra official can make the poll itself.

If this is meant to take away the right of any citizen to post a poll on any matter, then no my opinion is that right cannot be taken away. The section in the Constitution on initiatives was crafted after many incidents over demogame history of officials refusing to poll an action when requested, and refusing to consider a citizen's poll as binding.

 

[Hyronymus]

Let's get this topic back on track. As the discussion of the entire act in one piece proofs difficult I think we should discuss this act bit by bit. This won't work if people ignore this so please stick to the section of the act currently discussed.

Section I: Poll requirements
Poll requirements 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.

 

[Provolution]

There should be no argumentation for one or several choices in the first post at all, and all options should be listed in alphabetic order or by order of numeric succession (for science polls, number of turns research, for wonder builds, number of turns to build or for war objectives, 1. The ranking of the least extreme option (one city) to more extreme options (several cities) and the sequenced proximity from our border to the closest military objective if there is a choice of objectives of the same number.

 

[Provolution]

Polls may cover only one question, but if prerequisites are needed to enact the decision, the poll should notify which discussions and polls impacting these prerequisites. It should also be legitimate to write the question to include several actions that occur at once in the very same turn, actions that fit into one single strategy. (For example, changing 2-4 civics at once the same turn we conquer a specific city and make that balance out with concluding researching a tech same turn.).

 

[DaveShack]

Polls may cover only one question, but if prerequisites are needed to enact the decision, the poll should notify which discussions and polls impacting these prerequisites. It should also be legitimate to write the question to include several actions that occur at once in the very same turn, actions that fit into one single strategy. (For example, changing 2-4 civics at once the same turn we conquer a specific city and make that balance out with concluding researching a tech same turn.).

This can be handled quited easily by proper wording of the question and answers. It is quite permissible for an official to determine the sense of the people via discussion and then post a poll asking for approval of the package deal.

Shall the civics be changed to Vassalage, Organized Religion, and Representation on turn 2?
Yes/No/Abstain

This is much better than having a poll with all possible combinations of civics.

 

[Hyronymus]

This can be handled quited easily by proper wording of the question and answers. It is quite permissible for an official to determine the sense of the people via discussion and then post a poll asking for approval of the package deal.

Shall the civics be changed to Vassalage, Organized Religion, and Representation on turn 2?
Yes/No/Abstain

This is much better than having a poll with all possible combinations of civics.

But the poll options aren't exhaustive. If you want a really good poll you should allow people to choose every option, even though that means you get a long list.

 

[Provolution]

This can be handled quited easily by proper wording of the question and answers. It is quite permissible for an official to determine the sense of the people via discussion and then post a poll asking for approval of the package deal.

Shall the civics be changed to Vassalage, Organized Religion, and Representation on turn 2?
Yes/No/Abstain

This is much better than having a poll with all possible combinations of civics.

This is why we need to regulate for example civics discussions, so that the different package deal can be prepared for polling on the same terms, to show the real alternatives. I would much prefer this kind of poll:

A) CIVICS CHANGE: VASSALAGE, SERFDOM + ORGANIZED RELIGION TURN 3 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF MOSCOW

B) CIVICS CHANGE: NATIONALISM, CASTE SYSTEM + FREE RELIGION TURN 8 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF ODESSA

C) CIVICS CHANGE: BUREAUCRACY, SLAVERY + PAGANISM TURN 10 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF KIEV

TO

CIVICS CHANGE: VASSALAGE, SERFDOM + ORGANIZED RELIGION TURN 3 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF MOSCOW

and then suddenly have one angry guy jumping up with a "citizen input" repoll 3 hours later with

B) CIVICS CHANGE: NATIONALISM, CASTE SYSTEM + FREE RELIGION TURN 8 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF ODESSA

and then, one drunk lad comes home from town, wanting to make yet another poll the first citizen that polled his own initiative failed to do.

C) CIVICS CHANGE: BUREAUCRACY, SLAVERY + PAGANISM TURN 10 FOLLOWING CONQUEST OF KIEV

Then we go a judicial civil war over polls because someone came up with the first two-dimensional poll before the discussion was over.

I would say that the discussions themselves should have a defined timestamp as well, so people know how long time they have to provide input. Otherwise we see rash coups of "citizen pollers" pushing through their will 8 hours into a discussion. Letting the discussion run its course, then have someone poll the presented options (which have to be made clear in "quotation packages" with defined wording on what to do, where the question of the discussion asks for proposals to solve a certain problem).

If someone cannot articulate such a pollable option in a two day discussion, they should probably not poll it in the first place.

Let us say we want turnchats every 5 day. The genesis of a TC week.

Day 1-
Immediately after turnchat, we see a review of the game, chatlog and save, which is the core info of a demogame.

Day 2-
Then we need two days to run full discussions from day 2 and onwards, these discussions should be official and defined, and target all of the problems. Such discussion threads not posted within 48 hours after the turnchat would not be legitimate for comparative polls, for example.

This would force us to discuss in discussion threads and give clear, researched options, not bullying each other with one-sided singular polls too soon. A full fledged discussion where citizens present pollable options for key decisions would be important here, also in order to include these decisions in the bigger picture.

Day 3-
The official for each area polls the options presented in their discussions. This means that the science leader only polls the discussed options, not all of the game options as we see today. This would focus on the value of discussions.
Otherwise, we see the main tech debate go on in the polls.

Day 4. Polls are posted well 2 days ahead of the TC itself, with all the proposals presented in the discussions that took place in Day 2-3.

Day 5. Votes are counted and official makes last minute alterations to their plans made on polls.

Day 5 TC is played according to arranged schedule, Chain of Command kicks in if someone does not show up within 20 minutes.


If we do this, we would get a more civilized demogame, as we both abolish self-centered officials and mob rule, and everyone gets a say in an orderly and transparent fashion.

 

[donsig]

Polls that cover an actionable item in the Civ 4 game or the Demogame meta-game are initiatives, and thus binding.

How does this fit in with so-called information polls? I'm generally in favor of the wording here excpet we must make it clear that only closed polls can be binding.

Other than that, I'm very hesitant to vote for an initiative that automatically invalidates polls.

 

[DaveShack]

How does this fit in with so-called information polls? I'm generally in favor of the wording here excpet we must make it clear that only closed polls can be binding.

Other than that, I'm very hesitant to vote for an initiative that automatically invalidates polls.

Limiting binding polls to closed polls is OK only if the definition of "closed" includes those polls which end at the beginning of a play session but no longer than 24 hours prior to the designated end of the poll, due to the forum software limitation requiring poll durations in whole numbers of days only.

It should come as no surprise that I'm also against automatic invalidation, or language which requires a ruling for invalidation based on a fixed rule.

 

[HUSch]

Sry
That i make this inquiry:
Why do you three have the same avatar? It's confusing me!

 

[Provolution]

Sry
That i make this inquiry:
Why do you three have the same avatar? It's confusing me!

"hush, the baby is sleeping"

 

[fed1943]

So, our three partners agree about their avatar.

Best regards,