Poll reform suggestion

[Shaitan]

Bold text was Originally posted by jorge_roberto

1. Information poll is not usefull oficially, so we should not specify it.
It's specified so people will know that there is a way to poll for information without creating a binding poll. For example, I wanted to get an initial idea of who the people thought we should go to war against but I knew it was way too early to make a decision on the matter so I did an informational poll that led to discussion and then to an official poll.

2. It's not good to have a official poll be valid in 2 hours, with 12 citizen in a 7 x 5 result. I think 24 hours is need.
Good point. Perhaps a 2/3 plurality should be required during the first 24 hours, lowering to a simple plurality after that.

3. The discussion thread should be created at the same time of the official poll.
It's actually desired for the discussions to be run before any polling. This is in the "preferred" section.

4. Forget the propesed poll. Instead of this, let's require the "Null" option, meaning the citizen disagrees with all valid options and/or with the entire poll.
We already require an "Abstain" option. "Null" would basically be redundant to that. We could specify that if abstain gains plurality then the poll is invalidated.

 

[jorge_roberto]

Originally posted by Shaitan

2. It's not good to have a official poll be valid in 2 hours, with 12 citizen in a 7 x 5 result. I think 24 hours is need.
Good point. Perhaps a 2/3 plurality should be required during the first 24 hours, lowering to a simple plurality after that.

4. Forget the propesed poll. Instead of this, let's require the "Null" option, meaning the citizen disagrees with all valid options and/or with the entire poll.
We already require an "Abstain" option. "Null" would basically be redundant to that. We could specify that if abstain gains plurality then the poll is invalidated.

Shaitan,

Thanks for your comments.

I've thought about 2/3 for < 24 hours polls. I think it's good. At least it is clear the option is supported by a lot of citizens.

But I insist with "Null" option. "Abstain" is different .

For me:

"Abstain" means that the citizen agrees with any valid option. "Whatever"

"Null" means that the citizen disagrees with all valid option and/or the entire poll. "I don't want this"

Example: A important option is not in the poll. The question is not clear.

jorge_roberto

 

[Octavian X]

The whole problem can be traced to irresponsbile leaders. 24 hours for discussion, and 24 more for polling would be perfectly sufficient if leaders would post more relevant discussion, or we had turn chats between longer intervals.

Unfortunatly (no matter how much we make ourselves believe), we do not live in a perfect CivWorld.

I do favor a lessening a time restrictions. Eliminating the discussion stage could help significantly, since people can still discuss in the poll thread.

However, time requirments involving passing and amending laws should, under NO circumstances, be changed. Changes to the Constitution and CoL are very important to the fabric of the game, and as such should be taken with much more consideration.

 

[Shaitan]

@jorge - Null could be incorporated into abstain. If abstain holds plurality in a poll, the poll is void.

 

[Shabbaman]

I've got a suggestion: instead of closing a poll, just let it open. Check the poll results at the time you'd ordinarily have the poll closed, and post those as the poll result. This way, citizens who 'forgot' to vote can still vote afterwards. Their vote doesn't count, but this way we can get a better idea of the accuracy of the poll (and thus, the result)

 

[Shaitan]

Some strong check on "hasty abuse" is still demanded so I moved the 24 hour discussion requirement back to the must-have section. This isn't a bad idea. We overreacted before and made things too strict so it's probably a very good idea to leave this here to make sure we're not overreacting the other way now. 24 hours to discuss is reasonable and there shouldn't be a problem getting polls completed since we are still removing the duration requirement for polls.

The approval requirement during the first 24 hours was increased to a super plurality. That means that a choice must receive at least double the support of the next highest choice in order to win in the first 24 hour period. After 24 hours the approval needed is a simple plurality. This will statictically prevent truly unpopular policy from being passed at the lower quorum level simply because of skewed participation.

A kill zone has been defined. If "Abstain" wins plurality then the poll is not binding. This incorporates jorge's "null" option into "abstain" and is really just common sense. If most of the people do not have a preference of those listed then the poll has problems and needs to be revisited.

Suggested Poll Procedures, v2

A.	The following criteria are required for a poll to be binding: 
	1.	Quorum levels must be met.
		a.	Quorum for polls is 1/3 of the active census within the
			first 24 hours or;
		b.	1/2 of the active census after the first 24 hours.
	2.	Approval levels must be achieved.
		a.	In the first 24 hours a super plurality is required.
			1.	To "win" the poll in the first 24 hours, a
				category must receive at least double the
				votes received by the next highest choice.
		b.	After the first 24 hours a simple plurality is
			required.
		c.	If "Abstain" ever holds plurality at the end of a
			poll, the poll is not binding. 
B.	The following criteria are required for a poll to be valid:
	1.	Discussion thread open for 24 hours, minimum.
	2.	Poll type in the header and first post. 
	3.	Poll end dates/times noted in the first post. 
		a.	End dates/times can be conditional. (Example: 
			poll ends at the beginning of the next chat turn) 
	4.	Participation requirement (quorum needed) noted in the 
		first post.
	5.	Link to relevant discussion threads in the first post. 
	6.	Inclusion of an "Abstain" option. 
	7.	Link to the poll in the Poll Registry.
C.	The following criteria are preferred for all polls:
	1.	Proposed poll, up for 24 hours minimum.
	2.	Poll posted with link from discussion thread. 
	3.	Poll duration minimum of 24 hours (48 hours plus is 
		preferred). 
		a.	If the poll runs into the weekend it is advised 
			that the duration be extended by 24 hours for 
			each weekend day. Forum participation is much 
			lower on the weekends. 
	4.	Link to the poll in the appropriate Department thread.
D.	Information polls - Do not have restrictions and cannot be used 
	to justify policy, plans or actions. 
	1.	All polls posted by Leaders are considered Official unless 
		specifically noted to be informational in the header and 
		first post.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Shabbaman
I've got a suggestion: instead of closing a poll, just let it open. Check the poll results at the time you'd ordinarily have the poll closed, and post those as the poll result. This way, citizens who 'forgot' to vote can still vote afterwards. Their vote doesn't count, but this way we can get a better idea of the accuracy of the poll (and thus, the result)

Individual pollsters could certainly do this. It would be important for the actual results to be recorded at the defined end of the poll.

 

[donsig]

I'm still not sure about this. With three chats scheduled per week do we have time to open a discussion thread and have it open for 24 hours before posting a poll that can remain open for 24 hours before the next chat? Can we do so and still have any time to digest what has happened in a chat? Seems to me that 3 chats in 7 days puts pressure on anyone trying to get good polls written. I also see nothing wrong with combining the discussion function into a poll. Am I the only one who has noticed that some of our best discussions are in poll threads?

I am also very wary of changing the rules for polls for another reason which I raised way back in DG1. By defining official, valid and binding polls we risk losing (for lack of a better term) many good polls. Take for instance the recent Plan A poll posted by Cyc. Though it was clearly an informational poll (due to time contraits in the current rules - something I know we are trying to fix in this discussion) it clearly indicated the will of the people. Yet it was not followed and the main argument is that it was an informational poll. We have lost sight that polls need not be official, valid and binding in order to be followed and that is a very dangerous thing. In a nutshell our polling rules act to limit the number of polls that are out there. Less polls means it is more difficult for our leaders to determine the will of the people and act accordingly. We need rules that will foster and encourage the posting of polls. It is a noble endeavor to strive for good polls but I'm not so sure limiting polls is the way to get there.

I think it is time we address a major need in our rules. We need a mechanism where citizens can petition to have actions by our leaders reversed. Under our current rules we can ony start a PI against a leader for violating the Three Books. There are times when a leader takes an action that goes against the will of the people but is not enough to call for impeachment. Nonetheless the action should not be carried out or it should be reversed if already taken (and reversal is possible). Citizens should have the right to go to the judiciary if they think an illegal action is being taken. The judiciary should have the power to issue injnctions to stop specific actions or reverse them if the actions are found to be illegal. By giving the judiciary the power to stop illegal actions we will encourage those who post polls to to strive to make good polls that can hold up in court so to speak.

 

[Shaitan]

@donsig

These rules would at least make proper discussion and polling a possibility. Right now there isn't any option to legally poll most things. The problem is primarily the 3 chats per week. I think these rules as proposed can handle 3 chats per week and will be perfect when we return to 2 chats per week.

These rules open up some of the poll restrictions so should encourage polls, not limit them.

I agree that there's an occasional need to force a leader to do what the majority want done. I don't think we'll cover that in poll reform, though. That would be a good topic for another thread.

 

[Chieftess]

How about polls by citizens? It says all polls by leaders, but I can't find anything on citizen polls....

 

[Shaitan]

These are polls for everybody. Leaders aren't mentioned at all except to note that a poll posted by a leader is an official poll by default (not informational unless specifically noted to be informational only).

 

[Cyc]

Hmmm. With the three short t/c's a week format, 40J has taken the DG standards and given them a good shake. Similiar to what Shaitan's dark :30 chats did. This can be seen as a good thing as we are supposedly a Democracy and should address the needs of all citizens.

I again like Shaitan's new proposal. The super plurality is a unique standard that has had a silent grass roots support. Any of our citizens that monitor polls can clearly see an easy winner, as a lot of our poll are are run very close to the end and split 50/50 on at least two of the options. So super plurality will not vastly effect the majority of polls, but will help with those polls that are clear winners.

I say let's go with this change (including the NULL/ABSTAIN trial) and see if it works for us. I am not really afraid of losing poll participation or writing because of this change. Both of these two things are already low.

 

[Shaitan]

This will be a standards change so will need a council vote. I'd like a little more feedback before I go find a sponsor, especially from jorge as he contributed quite a few of the elements in this latest proposal.

 

[SKILORD]

I like Shaitans proposal, though the Null idea sounds useful

 

[Shaitan]

@SKILORD - The Null was incorporated into the Abstain option. If Abstain wins a poll, the poll is kaput.

 

[Shaitan]

I've posted an informational poll to see what sort of support these changes have. These are Standards so will need to be changed by a Council Vote but I'd like to see how they are generally accepted before finding a sponsor.

 

[Shaitan]

Any other feedback on these? I'll be hunting for sponsors tomorrow.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I am ready to sponsor this proposal. If anyone has anything to add to this discussion, please do so now. Barring any major opposition to this proposal, I will be posting a council vote at approximately 1pm EST tomorrow.

A.	The following criteria are required for a poll to be binding: 
	1.	Quorum levels must be met.
		a.	Quorum for polls is 1/3 of the active census within the
			first 24 hours or;
		b.	1/2 of the active census after the first 24 hours.
	2.	Approval levels must be achieved.
		a.	In the first 24 hours a super plurality is required.
			1.	To "win" the poll in the first 24 hours, a
				category must receive at least double the
				votes received by the next highest choice.
		b.	After the first 24 hours a simple plurality is
			required.
		c.	If "Abstain" ever holds plurality at the end of a
			poll, the poll is not binding. 
B.	The following criteria are required for a poll to be valid:
	1.	Discussion thread open for 24 hours, minimum.
	2.	Poll type in the header and first post. 
	3.	Poll end dates/times noted in the first post. 
		a.	End dates/times can be conditional. (Example: 
			poll ends at the beginning of the next chat turn) 
	4.	Participation requirement (quorum needed) noted in the 
		first post.
	5.	Link to relevant discussion threads in the first post. 
	6.	Inclusion of an "Abstain" option. 
	7.	Link to the poll in the Poll Registry.
C.	The following criteria are preferred for all polls:
	1.	Proposed poll, up for 24 hours minimum.
	2.	Poll posted with link from discussion thread. 
	3.	Poll duration minimum of 24 hours (48 hours plus is 
		preferred). 
		a.	If the poll runs into the weekend it is advised 
			that the duration be extended by 24 hours for 
			each weekend day. Forum participation is much 
			lower on the weekends. 
	4.	Link to the poll in the appropriate Department thread.
D.	Information polls - Do not have restrictions and cannot be used 
	to justify policy, plans or actions. 
	1.	All polls posted by Leaders are considered Official unless 
		specifically noted to be informational in the header and 
		first post.