Polling Standards Commission

[Shaitan]

I think we're on the same page, just reading different paragraphs.

Take this example: An important trade deal is up this turn. Trade put a poll up but it is one vote shy of validation at the time of the turn chat. So, there is no official instruction on what to do. Should the turn chat be stopped when the trade deal has to be dealt with? Should the DP make a decision based on the invalid poll? Should there be a spot poll? What if the invalid poll was 12 yes votes and 3 no votes? What if it was 8 yes and 7 no?

My take is that if the invalid poll was overwhelmingly for the deal, the DP should make the deal. If it was marginal then a spot poll should be taken. In neither case would the game be stopped.

The only thing I can think of that should force the turn chat to stop is a declaration of war.

 

[donsig]

Regarding the trade example with a non-valid (one vote shy) poll. In a case such as this wouldn't the trade dept. be able to make the decision on whether or not to make this trade and post proper instructions? The poll could not be used as evidence to defend (or attack) the decision.

 

[Shaitan]

Yes, the Constitution stated that from the beginning. If there is low participation or forum outage, the Department Leader has the authority to make arbitrary decisions. Missing the quorum defines low participation for a poll.

For the example, though, there was no instruction. Say that the leader left instructions to do what the poll said, or something like that. The DP is there with only an invalid poll and the chat crew to back him up.

 

[Cyc]

OK, can I ask for a quick summary of the last page and a half from each of you? And maybve what Eklektikos thinks. It looks to me like we're getting close to defining the parameters of validation, but that may be wishful thinking.

 

[Shaitan]

Cyc, we're getting close but may be hung up on how valuable an invalid poll is. I think that under certain circumstances it can give a valuable indication of the will of the people. The problem is that will almost always be a judgement call.

The nitty gritty is that an invalid poll should not be able to be used to criticize a leader's decisions. Similarly, it should not be able to be used to validate a leader's decisions. (It could be used to guide a decision though?)

If a poll fails to meet the quorum, it is a case of low participation under the Constitution. That means the leader can make an arbitrary decision.

 

[donsig]

Shaitan pretty much summed up the point we have reached. I have not looked at any specific standards myself as I was still trying to get a handle on the validation and binding. We've covered validation/non-validation. What is a binding poll? What is a non-binding poll? The former must be followed or the official risks impeachment? The latter can be ignored?

 

[Shaitan]

Yes, binding polls must be followed by officials or they face investigation and possible repurcussions. Here's the combos:

Valid/Binding - Do it or suffer the consequences!
Valid/Non-binding - A successful info poll! Use this to develop future policies or to simply enjoy the knowledge you have gained.
Invalid/Binding - It's invalid. At best it might be informational.
Invalid/Non-binding - Same thing as above. It's invalid and can't be used to justify actions, etc.

 

[disorganizer]

and whats the problem with judgement-calls and investigations? if the player did it right, he wont be voted guilty (you know, donsig;-) )

so the deal would be the following:
lets assume there was a invalid poll, but overwhelmingly for the trade-deal (to stay with the example)...
lets say 14 yes, 1 no, 16 would be needed to make it valid
the trade leader posted a instruction to follow the poll (this point is important! we have to educate our officials to do much more instruction posting! it can not be that the chat-attendees have to go thru the forum to search for instructions. if the poll would be valid and the instruction not posted by the leader of the concerned department, this would bring the leader of the department to jurisdiction, not the player)

now back to topic:
if the player follows the poll (its HIS decision!) or even takes one more spot-poll in chat (should be citizen poll though), then he may be subject to investigation (if any citizen would care). even if one cared and brought the point up and the discussion is opened, and even if one is against till the guilty-poll, then this poll will go in favour of the player if he did the right thing.
call it a post-validation ;-)
a good example was, i think, shaitans investigation (#1) where he brought himself up for investigation.

 

[Cyc]

Very cool. Looks like we're getting somewhere.

To me a binding poll is one drawn up by the President, a Leader, or the (possibly) new Judiciary members. This poll will change part of your Phoenatican world. It is binding to allow the poll writer to make a new standard, law, or amendment according to the content of the poll. Actually for a Law or Ammendment it would have to go through a council vote, but a binding poll would get it to that point. The actions caused by the binding polls could effect procedures on turn chats, polls, investigations, or any major point in the game that could deal with a citizen. So we need to pay close attention to binding polls. If a binding poll turns out to be valid in all aspects, a change will be made, or an action will be taken. If a binding poll is invalid, then like Shaitan said, informational.
Should a leader use a valid poll to make a decision? Only if he is seeking re-election. If a Leader continually ignores valid polls, he sets himself up for impeachment.
Should a Leader use an invalid poll to make a decision? Who cares. Why would you admit to using information from a worthless poll. You can still do it, and if the poll was mostly approved by the people, you can say you did it for the people, not the poll.

 

[donsig]

I have nothing against judgement calls Dis!

OK, now can I ask here if we can let citizens post polls and anythig? I will be bringing this issue up in the "C" discussions after I print out a new version.

If we do end up allowing citizens unlimited polling rights will that effect how we write polling standards?

 

[Shaitan]

Take that to the "C" discussion as I've already loosened the restrictions a bit (to fit in with the 3 part rule format).

 

[Cyc]

I read the rework of the "C" version 1.1 and feel the definitions of valid and invalid polls needs to be changed.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Cyc
I read the rework of the "C" version 1.1 and feel the definitions of valid and invalid polls needs to be changed.

Any specific suggestions? Is it the verbage or did I miss the point?

 

[Cyc]

We have both addressed this in the "splitting the 'C'" thread. Funny thing is, maybe we should have addressed it in this thread... oh well.

 

[disorganizer]

We should urgently merge discussion on this issue. Shaitan: as you write the document, could you make a thread with a first post containing the up-to-date version of it? (or a link)
forum-attachment maybe is better because some have problems downloading files from the fileserver ;-)
also post links to both discussion threads in there, so we can channelize the discussions.
a title could maybe be (as catchy as possible! we need many readers and contributers!):
"new constitution! pre-reading here!" or something like that. after that we the other threads unstickied and the one you started stickied.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by disorganizer
We should urgently merge discussion on this issue. Shaitan: as you write the document, could you make a thread with a first post containing the up-to-date version of it? (or a link)
forum-attachment maybe is better because some have problems downloading files from the fileserver ;-)
also post links to both discussion threads in there, so we can channelize the discussions.
a title could maybe be (as catchy as possible! we need many readers and contributers!):
"new constitution! pre-reading here!" or something like that. after that we the other threads unstickied and the one you started stickied.

Sorry, a family emergency has come up and I'm about to high-tail it out the door. I doubt that I will be back on the forum before Monday. Here is the latest update.

 

[disorganizer]

cyc: sorry, now a copy of my post in here:
having citizens starting info-polls is also a good way of getting new and fresh ideas into politics. this is what our rl-governments have problems with, and why they really dont like the internet.
we have more possibilities electronically than normal polling in rl.
we could get a benefit from it, if we get it organized right.

another idea for the polls:
we could try to force icon-marking. lets say:
the exclamation mark sign (like in this post)
for ALL official polls and discussion threads
the question mark sign
all informational polls must have this sign.
list sign (the first in the list)
all official informational threads have this sign (like newspaper, history, census)
bulb sign
all citizen group-threads must have this sign.
other threads
can have any sign they like, but must NOT have any of the above mentioned.

violators wil be prosecuted!
EDIT:
by mod mail and mod action to change the icon

 

[FionnMcCumhall]

Does this citizen group still exist? Since im comiling all the citizen group for the tourism association i need to know weather to add it or omit it from the records.

thx
Phoenatica Tourism Assoc.

 

[Cyc]

Yes, it still exists. It should be a functioning group (no matter how active) as long as there are polls.

 

[Eklektikos]

Welcome to Almightyjosh, whom I'm drafting due to his evident desire to address the issue of polling.