How should we invalidate forum polls?

[donsig]

How should we invalidate forum polls?

• Use a person or committe to invalidate polls
• Use an internal poll mechanism such as a none of the above option
• None of the above
• Abstain

This is a multi-choice poll - vote for all options you would like to see implemented.

This is a public poll.

This poll will be open for 5 days.

This is a general poll which will be followed up by discussion and polling to determine how to implement any option receiving a majority of votes.

Link to discussion thread.

 

[dutchfire]

I voted none of the above. However, if that option doesn't win I'm going to repoll this to allow people who voted it to have a chance to determine how we're going to invalidate polls.

 

[730195]

I voted for "Use an internal poll mechanism such as a none of the above option". I think another useful possibility is a second yes/no poll canceling the first poll (e.g. if the first fails to include NOTA or somesuch).

 

[Methos]

I voted to use a person or committee.

I suggest have the Judicial Branch be that committee. All three officers must vote unanimously (sp?) to invalidate a poll for it to happen.

It makes sense to me that it should be the job of the Judicial Branch to validate law making polls.

I am totally against one person having the power, such as a Censor!

 

[DaveShack]

What's a legislative branch? Or did you mean judicial branch?

My vote for individual / committee is driven primarily by two factors, reliability that bad polls are always invalidated, and speed.

Taking speed first, I'd like the invalidation to occur as early as possible, while there is still time to post a repaired poll. By its very nature, a mechanism within the poll pretty much has to wait for the poll to finish before it can determine there was a problem.

As for reliability, a mechanism within the poll won't work because a bunch of people might vote thinking the poll is OK before someone comes along and points out the problem. Also a small number of people could vote "bad poll" instead of "no" in order to block an action they don't like.

And before someone mentions the history regarding lack of reliability of individual censors or committees in the form of unfair actions, let me be clear. Invalidating a good poll unfairly, or failing to invalidate a bad poll unfairly, can be viewed as worthy of a ban. Not the preferred outcome, but you don't need to worry about it getting out of control.

And don't get any ideas about calling my Censorial term unfair -- look closely and you'll see I did not invalidate any polls. I talked about what kinds of polls might be invalidated, but nothing was actually done.

 

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Methos]

What's a legislative branch? Or did you mean judicial branch?

Whoops, edited.

 

[donsig]

Just a reminder, this is a multi-choice poll. It is not a referendum on which exclusive method to use. You can vote for invalidating polls by committee or by internal mechanism since these options are not mutually exclusive.

@Ravensfire: Your proposed judicial method is quite scary. All three justices have to agree that a poll is invalid?

 

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Hyronymus]

Donsig, does an internal mechanism include the Judiciary? Somewhat in line with Ravensfire I think that citizens should be able to ask the Judiciary to look at a poll, by PM but preferrably by public forum post. That's why I'm asking .

 

[ice2k4]

I thought our new logic determines all polls be binding. Wouldn't this be binding as well?

 

[DaveShack]

End result - polls can be quickly validated. If it truly is a bad poll, and should be invalidated, it can be done, but will take a bit more effort.

I'm not concerned with ever validating polls. All polls are assumed to be valid unless they are found to be invalid.

If it truly is bad, and the ones we're talking about are really bad, then a quick decision to invalidate is imperative. I'd expect one Justice to be able to declare a poll invalid, or at least declare an injunction against implementing the poll's result until the claim against it has been resolved.

Of course, without any polling standards, it's really hard to invalidate a poll, isn't it?

Any poll with false or misleading information in the OP or the poll options is invalid. Leaving off a significant option would qualify as misleading. This takes care of the polls of the following type, unless we've already decided to definitely go to war with someone, because "Don't declare war at all" is not included as an option.

Who shall we declare war against?
* France
* Germany

 

[DaveShack]

I thought our new logic determines all polls be binding. Wouldn't this be binding as well?

It's not actionable, meaning it does not compel any direct in or out of game action. It merely tells whomever drafts the initiative what things should be considered during that drafting effort. Then the initiative itself must be ratified, and could fail to get the necessary support.

I know, rather ironic, isn't it?

 

[Methos]

Using both ravensfire's idea and my own (which are similar) lets try this. If a justice official believes a poll should be labeled invalid he/she makes a post in that poll thread stating the poll is currently suspended until such time the judicial branch can make a legal determination. If the three justices come to the conclusion it is valid the poll continues on (possibly requiring a mod to extend the length of the poll, or reopen it).

If they decide its invalid the poll is closed by the judicial branch.

As already stated, all polls are considered valid when created.

 

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Methos]

The presumption you're going on is that the poll is invalid.

I'm curious where you get that, as I explicitly state that all polls are considered valid from creation. Look at the last line in my post.

 

[donsig]

Good discussion all around. Thanks guys.

I agree (with everyone else?) that we want to assume polls are valid unless otherwise invalidated. I'm skeptical of Ravensfire's all-justices-must-agree but hopefully the judiciary will not be our only means of invalidating a poll. I love DaveShack's suggestion that one judicial member can put a hold (so to speak) on the poll results until the judiciary makes a decision. This could work as long as we all agree that such a hold means only that the results of the poll are not binding during the hold. We wouldn't want to delay the game.

@Hyronymus: An internal mechanism would not include the judiciary thing as proposed by Ravensfire. Internal means internal to the poll itself. I guess it could mean the poll poster drags his poll before the judiciary to get it pre-validated. Including such a pre-validation in the poll would qualify as internal, wouldn't it? An pre-validation can work side by side with any invalidation process we settle on.

@Ravensfire: Judiciary members not posting? That's impossible, isn't it?

 

[DaveShack]

And then there is the question about what standards to use. There are none. Simple as that. Why - we haven't bothered to finish the polling standards we started. So far, it hasn't been a problem. The idea of invalidating based on "unwritten" and changing standards is just plain wrong. AND you want to make it easy to do?

The standard I posted (no misleading or false information) is a forum rule. Surely you don't plan to object to that?

I will have to take unilateral action if necessary. As I said before, I sincerely hope it's never necessary. Plenty of opportunity will be given for a citizen-initiated rule, as long as nobody goes nuts with trying to make a test case of it.

 

[ravensfire]

Since you are bringing that into this, DaveShack, I leave this entirely in your supposedly capable hands. Even with other, misleading and unfair polls used in the past without comment.

I remove all my comments from poll discussions.

EDIT: Comments removed.

-- Ravensfire