[DG2] Nominations and Elections Poll

Please read the first post.

  • Other (please write in post)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If no, how many? - Other (please write in post)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If yes - 1 Term Maximum

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • If yes - Other (please write in)

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    16
  • Poll closed .

Ginger_Ale

Lurker
Retired Moderator
Joined
Jul 23, 2004
Messages
8,802
Location
Red Sox Nation
Please vote for each of the following questions in the multiple-choice, public poll. If you have an option that's not listed, vote for Other and write it in here...

How should term lengths be determined?
By days/weeks/months
By in-game turns

How long should terms be?
1 month
5 weeks
# of turns (please write in post)
Other (please write in post)

How should the nomination/election period work?
Nominations last 3 days, starting 7 days before end of term, elections last 3 days, starting 4 days before end of term
Nominations last X turns, starting X turns before end of term, elections last X turns, starting X turns before end of term (please write in post)
Other (please write in post)

Can a person accept only 1 nomination?
Yes
No

If no, how many?
Two
As many as they want
Other (please write in post)

Should there be a "term cap" (where a person cannot serve more than a certain number of terms consecutively in the same office)?
Yes
No

If yes, how many terms (maximum) can they serve consecutively?
One
Two
Three
Other (please write in post)

Who is in charge of posting nominations/elections?
Moderators
President
A Person Elected at the Start of the Game
A Person Elected at the Start of Each Term
Other (please write in post)


I had to shorten the options for lengths of nominations and elections! Please read the post for full info.
 
Time based turn limits

Have a term cap on CONSECUTIVE terms (make sure that's clear, you can take a term off and return) of 2 terms.

Moderators should be in charge of nominations elections, but I don't have my heart set on this.
 
meh, forgot to vote 2 terms...

Moderator Action: Changed it.
 
As for term length (and I wish I posted this earlier), here's an idea. One to three month terms, a variable limit - minimum term one month, maximum of two. Between the end of the first month and two weeks before the end of the third month, any citizen (if seconded by two others, lets say) can call for a new election. At that point, a poll is put up. If a majority agrees and votes yes for a new election, the government is dismissed and nominations are posted immediately. Of course, at the end of three months, new elections are called.

This system allows for good, well-functioning governments to last and continue working, while those that rouse some discontent to be ended (while giving them a good chance to prove themselves over the first month).
 
Term Lengths by Days/Weeks/Months/ Perferably Months.
Term Length to be exactly 1 Calender Month
Nom/Election Period - 3 days apiece (starting 7 and 4 days before end of term, respectively)
1 nomination per player
Consecutiive Term Cap Yes for a Max of two terms
Election Responsibility Mods
 
As for term length (and I wish I posted this earlier), here's an idea. One to three month terms, a variable limit - minimum term one month, maximum of two. Between the end of the first month and two weeks before the end of the third month, any citizen (if seconded by two others, lets say) can call for a new election. At that point, a poll is put up. If a majority agrees and votes yes for a new election, the government is dismissed and nominations are posted immediately. Of course, at the end of three months, new elections are called.

This system allows for good, well-functioning governments to last and continue working, while those that rouse some discontent to be ended (while giving them a good chance to prove themselves over the first month).

Interesting idea, personally I still say set terms though.

A.) Set terms are very predictable, you know when you need to be preparing for elections, no "Surprise!! Elections starting in a few days"
B.) You risk the potential for people not calling for an re-election just cause you want to replace only a few candidates.
 
ravensfire: How come you voted "1 Nomination per Player - Yes" and then "If no, how many? - Two"? :hmm:

Octavian X said:
As for term length (and I wish I posted this earlier), here's an idea. One to three month terms, a variable limit - minimum term one month, maximum of two. Between the end of the first month and two weeks before the end of the third month, any citizen (if seconded by two others, lets say) can call for a new election. At that point, a poll is put up. If a majority agrees and votes yes for a new election, the government is dismissed and nominations are posted immediately. Of course, at the end of three months, new elections are called.

This system allows for good, well-functioning governments to last and continue working, while those that rouse some discontent to be ended (while giving them a good chance to prove themselves over the first month).

I see the point about allowing the government to continue to stick together and work, but I think it's much easier and more convenient for people to stick to just 1 month terms. Not to mention the fact that for newbies, saying that "Elections are the last week of every month" is easier to understand than "Elections can be any time between the start of the second month and two weeks into the third month since the last election, and can be called by any citizen."

Not to mention the fact that if 1 term went 3 months, that's easily half, or even 2/3 of our game! That's pretty boring for people who like elections and want to see a change of face.
 
ravensfire: How come you voted "1 Nomination per Player - Yes" and then "If no, how many? - Two"? :hmm:

That's simple.

Since you insist on cramming things together, including follow-up polls, I prefer that my voice NOT be cast aside and ignored if the majority voted "No".

Think about it - your statement implies that only people that prefer multiple nominations get to decide how many nominations they can accept.

See the problems with the giant, all inclusive polls yet?

-- Ravensfire
 
This poll would swiftly get invalidated if it were posted within the current ruleset, because it is way too complicated.

There is no reason to be in a hurry. We should have each issue in a separate poll, in a logical series if necessary, and with followups until it's decided.

I'll vote in the current poll in case the above advice by myself and Ravensfire is ignored, and then edit in an explanation of the vote.

For election responsibility, I voted "elected at start of term" and "other". For other, my preference is a volunteer election office like we had in the early DG's. In the unlikely event that something gets messed up, the mods can handle it. If we don't have the volunteer system, then elected at start of term is my 2nd choice.
 
This poll would swiftly get invalidated if it were posted within the current ruleset, because it is way too complicated.
:confused:

DS, you were the one that proposed we do the polling this way (the "Yes/No" then more detailed options), so I don't see how you are criticizing it...

There is no reason to be in a hurry. We should have each issue in a separate poll, in a logical series if necessary, and with followups until it's decided.
There's no reason to be in a hurry, unless you want people's interest in this game to die out even more. I can't speak for you guys, but I'd rather spend my time participating in the game than participating in the discussions.

I'll vote in the current poll in case the above advice by myself and Ravensfire is ignored, and then edit in an explanation of the vote.

For election responsibility, I voted "elected at start of term" and "other". For other, my preference is a volunteer election office like we had in the early DG's. In the unlikely event that something gets messed up, the mods can handle it. If we don't have the volunteer system, then elected at start of term is my 2nd choice.

Whatever, I don't care...you guys can split these all into separate polls if you want. It would've been nice to start by the New Year, but oh well.
 
:confused:

DS, you were the one that proposed we do the polling this way (the "Yes/No" then more detailed options), so I don't see how you are criticizing it...

I never said to do the yes/no question and the detailed options within the same poll, though I see how it could have been interpreted that way. Even if that had been the suggestion, it's still not a good idea to have one big poll to do all these disconnected choices.

How should term lengths be determined?
By days/weeks/months
By in-game turns

How long should terms be?
1 month
5 weeks
# of turns (please write in post)
Other (please write in post)

Can a person accept only 1 nomination?
Yes
No

If no, how many?
Two
As many as they want
Other (please write in post)

For the 1st grouping I would have suggested 2 polls:
  • Calendar vs Turn
  • Length of term

For the 2nd grouping, a single poll would have worked:
  • One
  • Two
  • No Limit
  • Other

We might as well just let this one finish and then figure out what to do if any results aren't clear.
 
The only other I voted on was who posts the nominations/elections. I think it should be combined with one of the current positions (i.e. Not have that task as a person's only job, but combine it with domestic or foreign, for example).
 
I'll go on record by predicting that continuing to only allow people to run for one office dooms us to an eternity of uncontested elections and unfilled offices. In the few contested races we'll see good players lose their one election and take the month off until the next election. It's a really bad decision, but I'll have no choice but to go along.
 
DS, if there are still empty offices after the end of the election period, can't we just give the President/the person next in the CoC the power to appoint people (to take effect immeadiately)?

Allowing people to run for multiple offices gives a false, inflated number of truly contested elections. Who wants to see the same two people duke it out in 5 different elections? If they want to run more than one, wait until the election is over, and, if they are empty, just ask the President!
 
DS, if there are still empty offices after the end of the election period, can't we just give the President/the person next in the CoC the power to appoint people (to take effect immeadiately)?

Appointments can then be affirmed by the people, until rejected and a replacement found that person could operate in that position
 
DS, if there are still empty offices after the end of the election period, can't we just give the President/the person next in the CoC the power to appoint people (to take effect immeadiately)?
Well, possibly with other details added, that's exactly what we must do. Multiple nominations just makes it less likely that an appointment will be needed.

Example without multiple nominations:
President Donsig vs DaveShack
Censor No Candidate

Example with multiple nominations:
President Donsig vs DaveShack
Censor Donsig

If DaveShack wins as President in the 1st example, we'll probably be looking for a different censor. In the 2nd example, Donsig gets Censor if DaveShack wins President. :mischief:

Just Kidding of course, we all know a snowball in hell has a better chance than the next game having a Censor position. :lol: And I'd appoint Donsig, even if he weren't the only applicant.

Allowing people to run for multiple offices gives a false, inflated number of truly contested elections. Who wants to see the same two people duke it out in 5 different elections? If they want to run more than one, wait until the election is over, and, if they are empty, just ask the President!

The same opponents in multiple elections would indeed be counterproductive. I don't think we've had that too much.

The total number of people running for office was higher when we had multiple nominations and deputies as runner-up. Was there a causal effect between limiting to one nomination and going to appointed deputies and the decline in the number of people accepting nominations? I can't say for sure the actual rule change was responsible, but it is an awfully strong correlation that the more restrictive we are, the less participation we have.
 
60 turns per term with nominationsat 40 turns and elections at 50 turns of each cycle.
 
Top Bottom