Informational: Are you comfortable with public polling (other than elections)?

[DaveShack]

We held a short discussion back in the DG4 forums about whether to make non-election polls public. This is an informational poll on whether we're comfortable with public polls. If there is strong support that we're comfortable with them, there may also be another poll on whether to make them mandatory.

This poll will remain open indefinitely, and is open for dicussion to continue in the poll thread.

Here's a quandry: to make the poll on public polls public? I think making it public will be a good testcase on whether future polls should be public.

 

[FortyJ]

Kindly disregard this post.

 

[Civman2004]

DS I really think this should be a public poll

I think there's a few things other than elections which should be kept private (can't think of any great examples, but for example a vote of no-confidence in say the Provincial Governor (sorry Zarn! - no slight intended) should be kept secret in my opinion. Other than that, it's handy to know what people think, and slightly satisfying to know a particular poster's style of play, and think "I bet that Saverok went for Bronze Working insead of Alphabet" - and be right!

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I believe that since any members that join are immediately members of the House, then their voting record, or lack thereof, should be made public. This function will help to ensure that ratification polls do not fall short of quorum, as well as will provde extra debate fodder for the elections.

I strongly encourage the use of public pols and feel that their mandatory institution(in due time) will enhance gameplay and allow us to conduct business more like a government. If that is something we strive for in this game, then support public polls.

DS I really think this should be a public poll

Yes, gotta love the irony there.

 

[Falcon02]

Public Investigation polls should also not use the public polling feature.

However, for most general issues I agree to them.

 

[Ankka]

Yeah, public is good, with the restrictions mentioned by Falcon.

 

[donsig]

I think we should use public polling for our elections as well.

 

[FortyJ]

I agree donsig. There should be no legitimate reason to have secret ballots for every official poll and election.

 

[Cyc]

I have been supporting Public Polling since we upgraded and the option first became available.

 

[gert-janl]

I support public votes in every discussion, instead of Elections and PIs. Voting privately is a right, and although I take it that there are no dictators around who will punish anyone not voting for them, I want to keep votes on elections secret. But that's another issue: I am comfortable with public voting at other polls.

 

[Vizurok]

I think that's a good idea...
Even elections can be public posts, because the voters sometimes write down their votes...
Why not?

 

[Black_Hole]

i agree with gert-janl

 

[FortyJ]

Can someone please give me a good reason for not having public elections? Preferably something other than the weasel excuse (ie. pretending to support someone while actually voting for someone else), which I consider to be unworthy of a Fanatikan (or whatever we're calling ourselves today).

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Can someone please give me a good reason for not having public elections? Preferably something other than the weasel excuse (ie. pretending to support someone while actually voting for someone else), which I consider to be unworthy of a Fanatikan (or whatever we're calling ourselves today).

I'll give it a shot............

1. Grudges(another unworthy Fanatican trait)
2. A citizen's right to vote privately(not in the Constitution, but it should be)
3. Opens up the opportunity for recruitment by seeing who hasn't voted yet.
4. Fear of political consequence from making an unpopular public choice.
5. Promotes voter retaliation ("you didn't vote for me; I won't vote for you....")
6. Broadcasts a difficult personal voting decision between qualified candidates, making it seem absolute.
7. Follow the Leader - "let's all vote who Cyc voted for"
8. Those who want to disclose already do; those that don't shouldn't be forced to do so.
9. The moderators have access to the polls should any electoral discrepancies arise.
10. Candidates will finally know with certainty who doesn't like them.

 

[Black_Hole]

I'll give it a shot............

1. Grudges(another unworthy Fanatican trait)
2. A citizen's right to vote privately(not in the Constitution, but it should be)
3. Opens up the opportunity for recruitment by seeing who hasn't voted yet.
4. Fear of political consequence from making an unpopular public choice.
5. Promotes voter retaliation ("you didn't vote for me; I won't vote for you....")
6. Broadcasts a difficult personal voting decision between qualified candidates, making it seem absolute.
7. Follow the Leader - "let's all vote who Cyc voted for"
8. Those who want to disclose already do; those that don't shouldn't be forced to do so.
9. The moderators have access to the polls should any electoral discrepancies arise.
10. Candidates will finally know with certainty who doesn't like them.

i agree, many problems would come up if we did have public elections, ppl who want other ppl to know who they voted for will say so, and others dont have to

 

[DaveShack]

ok, here's a weird one... thought I created this poll public, but now it's not?

 

[GenMarshall]

Personaly, I would only do public polls if it was something like a survey.

 

[Cyc]

ok, here's a weird one... thought I created this poll public, but now it's not?

You have to check the "Public Poll? box on the second page, Mr. President. And you can even do that on Arizona time. If you're 100% sure, you made this a Public Poll (and saw it) then something is amiss.

 

[Espírito]

I'll give it a shot............

1. Grudges(another unworthy Fanatican trait)
2. A citizen's right to vote privately(not in the Constitution, but it should be)
3. Opens up the opportunity for recruitment by seeing who hasn't voted yet.
4. Fear of political consequence from making an unpopular public choice.
5. Promotes voter retaliation ("you didn't vote for me; I won't vote for you....")
6. Broadcasts a difficult personal voting decision between qualified candidates, making it seem absolute.
7. Follow the Leader - "let's all vote who Cyc voted for"
8. Those who want to disclose already do; those that don't shouldn't be forced to do so.
9. The moderators have access to the polls should any electoral discrepancies arise.
10. Candidates will finally know with certainty who doesn't like them.

1. Grudges, I would hope we are all mature enough not to hold grudges, if you aren't, I dont know how you can understand the intricacies of civ3 anyway.
2. Right to vote privatley - why? If you believe in your vote, you shouldn't be ashamed to be seen to vote that way - stick by your judgements and principles!
3. Recruitment - poeple who havent voted are either lazy and so wont anyway or dont know who to vote for, I got a message asking me to vote for someone in the past elections and just ignored it, Im assuming it was mass mailed, at least to newbies and so this donesnt stp recruitment only aims it at some people.
4. See #2, everyone makes mistakes.
5. See #1.
7. I hope no1 would vote the way Cyc does! follow Noldo all the way! Again, if you do this, there's lttle point in playing because you arent actually playing, just making up numbers, and this could be spotted if someone was bothered.
8. Yes they should, the only reason to vote privately is if you dont want others to know your opinions and there should be no legitimate reason for this, coercion, fear etc. should have no place here, and Ive not experienced anything of the sort, I think these are valid in rl elections, not here.
10. This isnt a popularity contest and shouldnt be turned into one, if i dont vote for someone in one election i may in another, if you really dislike someone and make a point of not voting for them it would be obvious in your posts.