How shall we choose what civ to play

[DaveShack]

This poll will decide what method to use to choose the civ we play.

How should we choose what civ to play?

• Select one
• Make a short list, then random choice
• Fully random (no short list)
• Other (please specify)
• Abstain

Counting the results

• If any selection gets a majority, we'll use that method.
• If no majority, but the largest choice has at least 10% more votes than the next choice, the largest vote choice prevails.
• If no majority and 2nd place is closer than 10% from 1st place, a runoff will be held between those choices.

Link to discussion thread.

4 days, public.

 

[Love]

Come on, just select Gandhi and india and weire about to play!

 

[Falcon02]

Short list random, or fully random

ack... meant to do my vote for the short list one though... could a Mod please fix that...?

Moderator Action: Vote totals updated

 

[GenMarshall]

Select one, plain and simple.

 

[Furius]

I'm in favour of the short list...

It would seem to avoid getting a civ no one wants while avoiding unneccessary and devisive conflict...

But I'm not fully sure yet... Select one seems good too as it potentially removes uncertainty and makes the descision more 'democratic'...

So I won't vote just yet... (I can't yet, anyway)

 

[DaveShack]

There are several things to consider. Difficulty is one -- if we get a civ which is "too easy" then some people won't like a game that ends up a cake walk.

But the important thing in my opinion is playing a civ which is conducive to role play. If we're Germany, maybe we can call the chief executive position Chancellor. If we're Russia or China, perhaps Premier would work. If we're Japan, then maybe Shogun. It also helps to know at least something of the civ's culture because for many it makes writing role play easier. Of course we don't have to play roles, but some people have had fun in that area in the past.

 

[Ranbir]

I like the idea of fully random. The democratic process itself will ultimately be more important than which Civ the process is taking place in.

If a Civ is deemed 'to easy' we can just increase the difficulty of our game.

 

[donsig]

Already we're changing votes and I wasn't kidding in the other thread when I asked how the ten percent would be calculated. The same questions allpy here and are more pertinent since the vote is currently 7/7/9/0/0. No majority. Are going by the percentages listed in the poll results? They are currently 30.43%/30.43%/39.13%/0%/0% which would mean a run off betweenthe top two - but there's a tie for second. But then again 9 is two votes more than 7 and 2 is more than ten percent of either nine or seven so the option currently polling 9 has more than ten per cent than the next highest option. Once agian what is opvious to DaveShack is not obvious to donsig and visa-versa.

 

[DaveShack]

What is the desired result of this question?

 

[Furius]

I think a thorough discussion of polling procedures?

I personally believe that using the poll percentages is a bit more transparent and easy to see when one is voting... But the other system dosen't seem much more complicated really, so I think it's a matter of simple majority's personal preference...

 

[donsig]

What is the desired result of this question?

Well, the desired result of this question is an answer. Is that too much to ask my good friend?

I'm sure you know what you meant when you posted these polls DaveShack but when I first saw them I wondered how you were calculating the ten percent (I honestly never noticed the poll percentages before today). In addition to an answer I'd like you to see how your wording is ambiguous. This is also a test case for initiatives. If we're going to rely on polls to tell us what the majority wants then we need to be clear on what the majority is. In my mind if a poll does not result in a clear cut majority then no majority decision has been made. In DG game play that would mean the appropriate official would be free to make a decision about the issue being polled. Something for all of us to think about.

I think we should not get into bad habits such as enforcing the acceptance of plurality decisions. If there is no majority deicision reached then we should be able to look at again at all the options. In other words, if no options wins the majority then we should discuss the matter further and do another poll, though not neccessarily a clone of this one or the one suggested in the first post. My suggestion would be a two option poll of totally random versus picking a civ in some (to be worked out later) method. It is not fair to do totally random when more people vote against that method!

 

[DaveShack]

I'm trying to make the results more fair, according to input from others about what's unfair. I'd be equally happy with having someone else post the polls, if someone would just do it. Waiting is not a strong point for me.

It's subtracting the percentages on the right, comparing the result to be <10 vs >= 10. Currently it's 42% to 30%, a 12 point difference.

The runoff method is the best we can do to ensure an eventual victory for one option. It was a good question what should be done if there was a tie for 2nd place. All options would be polled again, and we'd have to hope that some people change their minds.

I could have used our old friend cumulative scoring, which would have virtually guaranteed the short list method would be selected. Highest vote total ignoring plurality would also have worked, if no ties.

 

[donsig]

I'm trying to make the results more fair, according to input from others about what's unfair. I'd be equally happy with having someone else post the polls, if someone would just do it. Waiting is not a strong point for me.

So because you're impatient we have to be stuck with an unfair poll? Right now the vote is 7/8/11/0/0 so 15 out of 26 have voted against fully random. That's a majority that voted against that method. Don't ram that method down our throat because you can't wait. The current voting trend is that a majority want to give some input into which leader we play. If you want to avoid plurality controversies the answer is simple: give people two options (along with abstain).

It's subtracting the percentages on the right, comparing the result to be <10 vs >= 10. Currently it's 42% to 30%, a 12 point difference.

Thank you for the answer. A nice objective method but I am still have objections to using the method that gets a plurality even if it does reach the 10% threshold.

 

[Methos]

Right now the vote is 7/8/11/0/0 so 15 out of 26 have voted against fully random. That's a majority that voted against that method.

I disagree with your logic, as your taking the poll and making it reflect your own desire. Using the same numbers it can be said that the majority (19/26) are against selecting our leader. It can also be said that the majority (18/26) is against making a short list.

There is a difference between selecting one civ and making a short list, so I don't believe the two should be lumped together to argue your own opinion.

If you want to avoid plurality controversies the answer is simple: give people two options (along with abstain).

Polls should not be a mandatory of two options and abstain, though I do feel the 'other' should be taken out.

 

[DaveShack]

I'm following the wishes of the people.

 

[donsig]

I disagree with your logic, as your taking the poll and making it reflect your own desire. Using the same numbers it can be said that the majority (19/26) are against selecting our leader. It can also be said that the majority (18/26) is against making a short list.

Right, so we need a different way of going about making this decision because the one we're using is not resulting in a decision. The different way is NOT to have a moderator dictate what we will do. And by pointing out that my logic applies to your position as well aren't you using the numbers to support your position?

I don't know about anyone else but it the match up had been select one versus totally random I'd vote for select one. What if enough others who voted for the short list would have done the same? Then we'd have a majority for select one instead of totally random. What if it were a matchup between short list and random and those who wanted select one voted for short list? No matter how you cut it, sticking us with a plurality choice sucks.

@DaveShack by hastily posting a poorly thought out poll you are not getting the game started according to that poll. You are doing one of two things:

1) Delaying the process by causing us to do in three polls what we could have done in one

or

2) Turning people off by causing strife and / or using your moderator status to rush things.

 

[ravensfire]

I'm following the wishes of the people.

Odd words, coming from a person who has said time and again that he'd do anything that he felt was in the best interests of the game, including break rules and toss aside the expressed will of the people. Odder still, coming from a person who knows quite well that we cannot start the game, that we still have massive and critical gaps.

I'm rather surprised.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Furius]

I don't know about anyone else but it the match up had been select one versus totally random I'd vote for select one. What if enough others who voted for the short list would have done the same? Then we'd have a majority for select one instead of totally random. What if it were a matchup between short list and random and those who wanted select one voted for short list?

This is a valid point, methinks... Is the polling system capable of doing preferential voting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preferential_voting)?
If not, I think we should try to limit our polls to two or three options...

And at very worst, perhaps we can accept a plurality as binding?

 

[dutchfire]

Your link is incorrect. You should remove the )? from the link.

It sounds complicated though. I'd prefer just having run-off polls.

 

[donsig]

It sounds complicated though. I'd prefer just having run-off polls.

But the trouble with run-off polls is which gets included? Using the method outlined for this poll we either get stuck with a plurality or we have a run off between the top two vote getters - and we have no guidance in what to do if there is a tie for second and third place. That means we exclude other options that got strong support. The current vote is 10/8/11/0/0 (or 34.48&#37;/27.57%/37.93%/0%/0%). Three votes out of 29 separate the three choices. So we'd exclude short list from the run-off even though it's within 10.36% of the top vote getter?

A much better way of doing this is to poll broader questions first then narrow things down. This will work for many issues we will face. Take the declaring war example: When should we declare war on the Mongols? Options are Next turn, withing 5 turns, within 10 turns, within twenty turns, never, other, abstain. The majority may want war but can't agree on when so the never option gets a plurality larger than 10% and there is no war. A better approach is the poll: Declare war on the Mongols? Options: Yes - timing to be determined in a subsequent poll, No, abstain. If a majority of those voting vote yes then the timing gets polled.

For the decision facing us here is a proposed poll (something DaveShack should have posted before posting this one):

Poll question:
How will we choose our leader / civ?

Options:
Choose one by a method to be determined later.
Use the in game randomizer.
Abstain

Link to discussion thread.
This poll will be open for 6 days.
This is a private poll.
You may vote for only one option.
Vote carefully since vote changes are not allowed in this poll.