Initiative: Amendment to the Naming Initiative (again)

grant2004

Citizen
Joined
Jul 11, 2004
Messages
1,315
Location
America
Hello everyone, I know there have been a few problems with our capital naming procedure, and I was wondering if there would be any support to change the citizen's initiative on naming so that a more streamlined procedure could be implemented before the next round of capital name discussion, and the first round of discussion for our 2nd city's name.

My proposal is that we change the initiative in the following ways:

Decisions should be made by plurality rather than by majority.
In this way we won't have run-offs, shortening the process substantially

A "none of the above" option should be required for the polls.
This would officially count as a vote to return to discussion anyone who
does not care about the city's name should be instructed not to vote.

I believe these changes would make our decision making process a bit faster, so hopefully we don't have 4 cities waiting to be named after the next few turnchats :lol:

The proposed changes to the initiative are shown below.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Naming Initiative
I. Preamble
As our civilisation grows we will, hopefully, found new cities and discover geographical features. Especially in the case of cities, custom names would help add an atmospheric touch to our civilisation.

II. Procedure for Naming a New City
On founding, a city will be given the temporary placeholder name: "City#1" (In the event that there is already a city holding that name, the new city will be named "City#2" and so on in numerical order as required). A thread will then be opened by to accept nominations from the public for the new city's name.

All nominated names which have been seconded after four days will then be polled. If there is no majority decision, then the top three options, including ties, will be polled again. In the event of no majority in the second poll, the top two options will be polled again. A plurality decision will be sufficient for the city to be named. In the event of a tie a runoff should occur

Should no nomination be seconded, all nominated names will be entered in the initial poll. Polls will also be required to contain a "none of the above" choice which will be interpreted as a vote to return to discussion. Citizen's who have no preference to the city's name should be instructed not to vote in the poll

III. Loss of city
Should a city be conquered or otherwise lost to another civilisation, before the naming process is completed, the process will be continued and the city given the eventually chosen name in the event of its recovery. Should the city be razed or otherwise destroyed before the naming process is complete, however, the naming process will be aborted.

IV. Renaming an Existing City
Renaming a city should occur only in special cases, and as such would be organised by the Chieftain, in consultation with the city in question's Elder

V. Other features
Other geographical features, including, but not limited to: continents, mountain ranges, oceans, forests, and plains may also be named. Nomination threads for such features may be posted by any interested individual, and would follow the same procedure as in II.

It is advised that a thread be maintained noting names of such geographical features to allow for easy referral.

VI. Limitations
Names must not violate CFC forum rules
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

The proposed poll for this initiative would be

Should the citizen's initiative on naming be amended?

Yes
No

The poll would also include the text of the initiative with changes, and a link to this discussion thread.
 
Geroge OP has a good point I think a majority is needed, if not then then the top two and others should be put in the next poll which I believe, but i might be worng this is the system we have now and it seems alright to me!
 
The system we have at the moment that has prevented us from naming anything in a reasonable timespan is okay with me :D
 
Ehhh, plurality decisions are just going to lead to trouble. But I can see how using them would make the game more efficient.

I say no to plurality. If there are two super cool names on the list that split the votes, and a lame one gets one more vote then both of them, we shouldn't be forced with the lame one.

Yeah, well, just because your opinion of it is that its lame doesn't mean that it is. If this passes and it comes to this, obviously, the name that would win would be the "technical" favorite. :)
 
Back
Top Bottom