Polling Standards Commission

[donsig]

I posted the following as a reply in the constitution splitting thread but it is also about poll standards and I think it's gets a little closer to what I'm trying to say:

If a poll is not valid does that mean we cannot follow the results of the poll? I see many problems with invalidating polls. If the government implements a policy measure that happened to be approved by a poll that was not valid then impeachment charges could possibly be brought against the government officials in question. A poll that does not live up to our standards may well still accurately depict popular opinion.
I think the best we can do with polling procedures is to allow government officials to justify their actions if they have a valid poll that backs the actions.

 

[disorganizer]

we will have to differentiate this:
there are really binding standard to make sure polls show public opinion: duration, discussion beforehand, abstain, quorum etc.
and formal standards.
the formal standars can not invalidate polls imho.
the others will, and so the poll does not show the public opinion

 

[Cyc]

Donsig, I've posted an answer to your question in the Constitution splitting thread in that thread (use Donsig's link). Validity is not a major issue here. At least not yet. It's strictly for official use. I don't believe it's more than (in this strange little analogy) whether a vehicle stopped at a stop sign or not. Was it a valid stop? If it was, no problem. If it wasn't, is there a problem? Maybe, but probably not. There still needs to be a law somewhere that says a vehicle must stop at stop signs, or why have the stop signs there?

 

[disorganizer]

i continue this discussion in here because i think it fits better to the name of the thread and remove clutter from the other one.

i think validation of polls is needed to see if they comply to citizen opinion. lets say we would have a poll with only 8 votes, which was up for only 24hours. this would definitely be an invalid poll, as it was a) too short and b) not enough citizens voted.
if the results of this poll would be used, this is not public opinion. if an important question (lets say going to war for example) would be covered by this, the poll is not to be used. if the action is definitely forced to be part of the next chat and the player in charge does notice the poll-result is a must for the chat and that it is invalid, the player MUST cancel the chat (or stop it if already running) and go back to forum with a new poll.
if it is only a minor issue, or if an older poll will still be in place, the player could also just ignore the poll (we must act with invalid polls as they would never have taken place, as they represent false information).
i do not think a formal error should render a poll invalid, though. we should identify the things redering a poll invalid and other things which render a poll "formal errorous", which should cause a warning letter to the poster and if repeated maybe can lead to inquiry and punishment.

 

[donsig]

I do not think we should be forced to cancel or stop a turn chat because someone has posted a poll that is not valid. That would render spot votes during turn chat to be useless. There are times when a decision is needed and the turn chat can't be stopped. If another country tries to extort something from us and our refusal may mean war, we cannot stop and save the game without making the decision! It will have to fall to the desiganted player and those at the turn chat to decide unless there is a valid poll covering extortion in general or specifically from the country in question.
I am still wary of what disorganizer is proposing but maybe I'm over-reacting when he says a non-valid "poll is not to be used." I agree that such a poll can ot be used to defend an action but I think it should not be used to prosecute or otherwise investigate an action taken, whether the action follows the non-valid poll or not. I also do not think that non-valid polls should stop or slow the play of the game.

 

[Cyc]

There, Donsig. I agree with you. I keep answering your first posting of these questions in the Constitutional splitting thread as that's the first one I come too. Please stop posting up there about polling issues. Post here.

 

[Cyc]

I believe what you said in your last post to be true. We shouldn't be stopping the turnchat everytime someone gets a little gas. This is actual play time and with the President or VP there, major decisions are not a cause for alarm. A Deputy or Governor may decide to halt the game in a tough situation (if possible), but this has to do with other issues than polling.

 

[disorganizer]

If you carefully read the proposal, the term "stop if possible" will be in there. So no point to you, donsig.
I still see that mayor discussion should be made by citizenry, not by the government.
As you can see in the appropriate thread about why our citizens leave, you will find this as the major minus of our game. Citizens leave because they see no sense in watching 6 ppl play a game.
(well, i also dont, btw).
We could the rename the game to "representative civ3-game" and hold elections every month but close the forum to citizens. The result will be the same.

 

[Cyc]

I don't see your point, Dis. Maybe I need another cup of coffee. And how does it relate to polling?

 

[disorganizer]

cyc: you should also tell donsig that, as he also talks about the chat. this is highly related to each other. and what do we need validation of polls for if they are not used? where are they used? so you see chat and poll regulation highly interface with each other.

btw:
nobody wanted to touch the spot-votes with invalidity of forum polls. and as i said, a invalid poll does DEFINITELY NOT show the opinion of the ppl.
if poll results of such a poll or a leader decission (well, maybe even a chat spot-vote) will be used, the opinion of citizenry is not implemented. it may happen citizency thinks different. if it is not possible to stop the chat at this moment (like with gfs map-demand problem), then its ok, but the chat should be stopped directly after. Any other case WILL give us opportunity to go to forum for polls (see civ2-game, i think this works almost the same way? just less interactive in playout though).

THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT:
is to make proposals to the public and get the public opinion of the citizency.
nothing else. not playing their own fassion. even if this is bad for "the game" (i think gf had this problem one time in the chat: they had to do things they knew were wrong, but public opinion was there).

 

[donsig]

Disorganizer, the point I was trying to make is two fold. First, many times important decisions must be made without having recourse to valid polls. Second, if we halt the turn chat every time we need a valid poll for a decision we will be lucky to get two turns a week played.

Cyc, I am sorry for posting in both threads but polling standards and how we split the constitution are inter-twined.

 

[disorganizer]

So how does the civ2-game work then?
Maybe more planning beforehand will then be needed.
What would we have to decide which we cant know beforehand?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by disorganizer
and as i said, a invalid poll does DEFINITELY NOT show the opinion of the ppl.

...

THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT:
is to make proposals to the public and get the public opinion of the citizency.
nothing else. not playing their own fassion. even if this is bad for "the game" (i think gf had this problem one time in the chat: they had to do things they knew were wrong, but public opinion was there).

It is my understanding that the standards we are endeavoring to formulate are to be put into place to ensure that a valid poll does indeed reflect the *will of the people*. That is all well and good but it does not follow that polls that do not live up to our standards do not reflect the *will of the people*. Some non-valid polls will be a proper gauge of citizen sentiment but others will not. Again, I must ask disorganizer what he means by 'not using' a non-valid poll. If he means "stop the game until we get a valid poll" then I disagree whole-heartedly. If he means non-valid polls can neither be used to defend nor prosecute a governmentl official's action then I agree.

As for the job of the government there are two school's of thought. 1) Formulate policy and then seek citizen approval or 2) Seek the wishes of the people and then formulate policy based on that. It seems to me that if we want a democarcy game we should be following the second school of thought.

 

[disorganizer]

i did not talk about a policy. you should read more carefull.
i talked about proposals, and thats ALL a department should do. work out a proposal (if the citizens arent doing allready) and then PROPOSE it. If accepted by citizenry (dont forget many vote, but dont post), this could be a POLICY for the department or a INSTRUCTION for the turn-chat.
The proposal shoukd, of course, be based on citizenry-discussion. I wonder how this game worked in the last 3 months though, as the rules are so "bad".
Maybe we should just go back to DOFs original rules ;-)

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by disorganizer
So how does the civ2-game work then?
Maybe more planning beforehand will then be needed.
What would we have to decide which we cant know beforehand?

I'm not sure how the Civ 2 game works but IIRC, didn't Mr. Spice say they had only ten active players? If so, then what we are trying to do is totally different since we want as many active citizens as possible.

Yes, I agree we need more planning but we should allow our officials to use their judgement when our plans don't cover events.

 

[disorganizer]

In not-mayor decisions, this will be allowed though. We could define the events WHEN a chat has to return. This should be strictly binding, and not only war.

Which events could you imagine not to be handled beforehand?

Your proposal will just lead to more invesitgations or if not to more dissatisfaction of citizenry, as leader will have to decide without any idea what citizenry really wants.

 

[Cyc]

Exactly, Dis. I believe the Civ2 game is less Democratic than this one. And it's for a country smaller than Conneticut. So, to me, it's irrelevent. As far as the handling of or planning for unseen events, I believe I addressed that in post #47. Let the Prez or VP make a decision or two. I believe the general consensus is (at this point in time) if it's WAR then stop the game, which sounds good to me. But that's a very Major decision.

And thanks for clearing up that other issue too. I didn't say you were wrong, I said I didn't understand.

 

[disorganizer]

Thats why i cleared it up ;-)
But what events could not be managed beforehand (again this question ;-) ), except popups at the beginning of the turn?
Maybe trade, but this wont be a major issue.
Maybe science, but this is plannable.
Maybe war, but we should stop then.

 

[Shaitan]

It's not necessarily a question of what can or can't be managed beforehand. It's more a question of what IS managed beforehand. If a trade deal expires and there are no instructions what to do with that deal, should the game be stopped? Heck no! The Trade Rep makes a decision or the DP makes a decision, or a spot poll is taken.

"Not using a valid poll": An invalid poll wouldn't be usable for enacting legislation or changing a decision based on a valid poll. It could definitely be used as an indicator of public opinion on a topic and help to formulate a decision that is validated in another manner. This depends on the individual circumstances though. A poll that gets 15 votes and needs 16 to be valid should carry a lot more weight than one that got 5.

 

[disorganizer]

well, if we difine regulations, they will be there to be used. so if we define 16 votes to validate a poll then 15 is NOT enough. so this poll is not representing public opinion.

to you trade-thing: so why wasnt this planned beforehand? thats a problem of the trade-department then to calculate trading option. and as this is a popup-event, it can be decided in the chat and verified on the forum afterwards.