Polls

[Sommerswerd]

We need to have a clear policy on what issues we will actually poll, and who is authorized to post / approve the posting of a poll. We have not polled anything in about a month... and while I love Consensus as everyone knows... I also love Democracy. I would like to get more folks involved. That means more polling IMO

 

[Provolution]

I think I would like to nominate Sommers here for this job, as Sommers has had a strong focus on due process in previous situations, and I gather the person learned a lot in the dilemmas we had.
As there has been no poll since turn 30 or so, I think it is high time to institute a polling system with some groundrules, or participation will suffer, as people may think their input is not taken seriously, even with a decent support base. We want the team to work out strategy as far as possible without polls, but use polls to arbitrate between dissenting views on multiple option issues.

So, I nominate Sommers as the Steward of Protocol (Interior minister is a bit non historical here), and hope we get backing for that.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Assuming that Provo means for me to take on the role of the "Internal Affairs Minister"... I accept.

As I originally nominated Smoke to have this role, I would like to invite Smoky to voice any objection to this... but since I (and others) have made several attempts to get a clear ruling on whether to conduct a poll, and received no response... I am assuming that Smoke is not really interested in being bothered with the job. I will take the responsibility for deciding when polls are appropriate.

Again, I invite any dissenters to speak up on this thread. I will assume that the usual "silence means consent" rule applies...

I notice that several team mates have already viewed this post.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Even if I will vote for the Gold City first, I think it would be healthy for the game if polling was used again. I suggest that in order to poll something, a poll option requires a minimum of 2 sponsors, and the poll must last 48 hours as a standard, absolute majority, and all assumptions must be written in the OP, as well as the terms (duration, options, absolute majority and Kaleb as tie breaker until we got another "king").

One issue at a time. Going by the standard you suggest, if at least one other person wants to poll this issue we will poll the Following question:

How many sponsors / requests will be required to conduct a poll?
a. 1 person
b. 2 persons
c. 3 persons
d. 4 persons

We will then have a runoff poll between the top 2 choices, unless there is an obvious overwhelming majority for one of the choices.

The other issues you suggest will be dealt with, each in turn, using the same method. For now, is there anyone else in favor of polling this issue?

I say b) , 2, as we are not that many people. The Senate requires 1 co-sponsor for a bill, for example. 1 would generate poll cottage spam, whereas 3 or 4 would make polls too hard to get worth considering.

Hold your vote for now. We can vote in the actual poll. First things first. You need at least one other person to request a poll on this issue or else it is just one person spamming polls as you put it. Is there anyone else you know of who wants to poll this?

 

[Provolution]

We will see, if people would like more order and predictability to decisionmaking.

 

[Sommerswerd]

has proposed a new rule that ALL suggestions (at least regarding city placement) should be supported by testing (conducted via the test save). As we all know, generously maintains a test version in the "Sim Games" sticky thread.

Well I vote that any suggestions must be backed up with test versions!! It's all very well saying 'we should build a city there' but how are we going to get there and improve the city? Things can sound fine in theory but fail in practice. Hence why we test things first... it's what the sim game is for.

IMO we should have a team vote before we adopt such a rule. If two additional team members agree that this issue should have a poll then you can say so here, and I will post a poll.

The language of the Poll would be:

What will be our team rule for suggesting locations for founding New Cities?

1. Suggestions for city locations MUST either include, or be based upon test games with screenshots.

2. Any team member can suggest any city location that they wish.

I would say that if we don't vote on this then it probably should not become team policy. Folks should also voice any disagreement on this thread to keep the City 5 thread focused on the location of City 5.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Well I vote that any suggestions must be backed up with test versions!!

I couldn't agree more with this statement.

I am not saying that to suggest something you need to post extensive analysis of tests, but at least you have to spend 10 minutes with the test file and play 15-20 turns, from current save to get the feeling of things...otherwise suggestions will be completely in the air and this game will deteriorate very fast.

Kaleb is making an effort here and spending time to update that test file..use it...at least for 10-15 minutes to have a minimum grasp of the situation.

Does this post mean that and Smoke want to poll the issue, or no?

As you saw in the 5th city thread, I took the time to play 20 turns ahead.

BTW I do use the tests saves and I really do appreciate taking the time to make them. I just don't think the test Sim should be used as a hammer to beat down dissenting voices.

 

[Kaleb]

First off, I'm fine for you, Sommers, to be in charge of running polls.

As for the rest, hmm, where do I start...

First of all, I am not saying that people are only allowed to suggest things if they support it with a test sim! Not everyone even has BTS for a start.

What do you define as "key" proposals? It seems to me that "key" proposals means anytime there are a bunch of team members who disagree with what wants to do it becomes a "key" proposal and requires "testing." And if you dont have time or knowledge to "test," then you can't offer an opinion. Is that what you mean?

Hey come on. You know I am not saying an issue is "key" only when people disagree with me, be fair. We've run tests for every city we've built so far, and even for lesser matters, I don't see why deciding the location of this city should be any different

To quote Willy Wonka "WRONG!!! sir, WRONG!!!" We build cities, fight wars, sign treaties, move scouts, and work tiles, based on WHAT THE TEAM WANTS, Not based on what "test" results show. If the team voted for example to build the horrible NE fish city (good heavens, please no) we would build it, because this is a Democracy Game.

And I think that if we are going to try and win this game we should plan what we want to do in detail. We will vote, but surely people will prefer to vote on facts rather than speculation? Or at least as close to facts as we can get. We can present views and opinions and people will make their decisions based on that.

We do what the majority of the team wants, not what thinks is best. Test results are not required to take action, all that is required is a majority... period. The ONLY time gets to decide what is best is when there is silence on the issue... because as we ALL know. Silence Means Consent. There is not silence on this issue so does not get to decide what is best. has to do what majority wants.

You're kind of arguing against a proposal I haven't made here... I'm am not in any way suggesting that we decide things by anything other than team consensus (illustrated through discussion or polling whatever is appropriate). I am saying that we should try and test various options through test games because that is best practice and just generally a smart, sensible thing to do.

What you seem to be suggesting is that decides what is best, and if you want to do something different you have to convince that your way is better through "testing." That is exactly wrong. If majority is leaning towards a particular action and disagrees, then must convince the majority... either through "testing" or through flowery prose to change their mind. If cant get the majority to change their mind by the time we vote/take action, then we do what did not want. So sad for , but that is how Democracy works.

This is not what I am suggesting at all, and you know it. You should try taking some of your own advice:

And Provo, this above Post is Mean spirited and Off-Topic. In your reply please:

1. Stay on topic and say something of substance....
2. Resist the temptation to put in Barbs and Insults... Please!

Final point:

So you admit that your "testing" was faulty... Hmmm. Exactly my point. You were convincing the team that we should wait to build Oskemen based on faulty tests... That is why testing is for information purposes ONLY and not a requirement.

When the RNG comes into play you need to be careful with trusting a sim game. We all know that, nothing new there, it's nothing about being 'faulty' as you put it. When I repeatedly got Confu founded in Oskemen I raised it to the team to ask what people thought about it. Then we discussed the formula and we realised the results were being repeated because the RNG was not refreshing without a Civ restart.

 

[damnrunner]

If we do a poll each side should have the chance to present their case. Test results can be used to bolster a case. But it is just support.

I expect we will also have some polls for which game testing is pointless - naming a city, going to war, etc.

 

[Indiansmoke]

As I see it in our case regarding the 5th city the delema is.

Do we get gold city first and iron city 5 turns later?

Or iron city first and gold 5 turns later?

It is more optimal to go gold city first...better faster development and tech...but it is more cautious to go iron first so we have metal 5 turns earlier.

Cautious people should vote for iron...more adevnturous for gold...I am with the adventurous bunch, as if we are going to win thios game...too much caution will not do it.

 

[cav scout]

I second Smoke's proposal for a city 5 poll. I support gold first also: we need to get our commerce city off the ground to keep the REX going. We have enough distance from the other opponents to wait 5 turns on the iron. Getting iron with city 6 still hooks up metal well before we face barb archers (or worse).

 

[Sommerswerd]

And how do we decide how many poll options we have? Shouldn't it be that we have a poll if at least 2 people support a particular course of action and at least 2 support another one? or 1 or whatever

These are good questions but they pose seperate issues.

FYI, This is the only poll I plan on posting WITHOUT a poll alert. This is because I felt comfortable that the "Polls" thread had been up long enough that everyone got a chance to hear about this poll and anyone who cared had a fair opportunity to comment. A poll alert for this poll would have been redoundant IMO.

Also, as I said, I think your questions represent seperate issues that would probably be better addressed in a seperate poll. For example... you might say, "I want a rule that says all the "options / choices" on a poll have 1 sponsor, 2 sponsors etc. Or you might say, "We should poll... 'How many opposition sponsors are required, once a poll has been requested and seconded?"

In General, I feel pretty comfortable with browsing the forums and getting a feel for what choices poeple want on the poll. On another note...How are we doing on time for the Tech Poll?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I noticed you posted twice in the 'rule poll' thread so I moved the discussion here...

I'm completely in favor of polls, if 2 people call for one we should vote. I would only caution that polls can actually be used to circumvent intelligent debate and consensus building, we should use them sparingly.

I dont think polls stop us from having intelligent debate, in fact the pressure of an upcoming poll makes people come up with really intelligent ideas, and very intelligent challenges to others' ideas.

I DO think that polls are all about "majority rule" and so, they are the exact opposite of consensus building. Polls are about finding majority... Consensus is about total agreement with no one left out. With a consensus, there is no majority, everyone agrees.

I hope we aren't going to get to get too far into the weeds with this, voting on every aspect of how to take a vote

I agree, which is why I asked Provo to wait for someone to second his proposal before I would poll any of his proposed changes to polling rules. I also tried to seperate the first issue from the many other rule changes suggested to keep the poll as simple as possible. You have to kind of see the irony... that Cavscout seconded Provo's proposal and then is worried about us going to far... oh well

How bout we all just agree to follow democratic principles with majority rule and the rights of the minority to voice dissent and have their say.

Well a poll is... strictly speaking, purely democratic... it is the purest expression of majority rule. However, you also said you wanted consensus building too, so I wanted to remind you that we can have consensus for a particular issue or we can have majority rule, but we cant have both at the same time.

One last point... Since we have started discussing polls and polling again I have noticed more interest and activity on the forums (see all the new names?)... We were going kind of flat for a while and participation was dwindiling. I obviously can not prove that the poll talk caused an upswing in participation, but I do think polls get folks interested.

 

[cav scout]

Come on sommers, majority rule and consensus are not exclusive. Deliberative bodies approve certain measures all the time with unanimous consent (watch C-SPAN if you don't believe me).

Consensus is always the prefered method for reaching decisions. If everyone seems to be for the Masonry-> Monotheism route do we really need to poll it? Spending time and energy on formalized voting when we don't need to is just pointless legalism. Just because we adopted confucianism in-game doesn't mean we need to here in the forum! When an issue becomes contentious and people want a vote they can call for one, no worries.

Oh and I don't think new people are joining our forum to debate parliamentary procedure btw, I suspect they just want to take part in a good game of Civ. Nice try though

 

[Sommerswerd]

Come on sommers, majority rule and consensus are not exclusive. Deliberative bodies approve certain measures all the time with unanimous consent (watch C-SPAN if you don't believe me).

You think I don't watch C-SPAN? It's practically required reading! Anyway, I'll just rely on good ol' Webster to back me up on this:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/consensus
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unanimity
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unanimous

Consensus, as you can see... means Unanimity
Unanimity, as you can see... is the state of being Unanimous
Unanimous, as you can see... means having the agreement and consent of ALL.

Consensus then, means that everyone who would vote, is going to vote yes. Solidarity of judgment arrived at by unanimous vote of most of those concerned. That is NOT majority rule. I will spare you the dictionary definition of "majority."

Check... and Mate. I think we can put that issue to bed, dont you?

Oh and I don't think new people are joining our forum to debate parliamentary procedure btw, I suspect they just want to take part in a good game of Civ. Nice try though

Maybe, Maybe not In all serious-ness. If you don't think people want "parlimentary procedure", ease up on suggesting new rules about "what proposals should be seconded, before adoption" etc. Didn't you just suggest using "Roberts Rules of Order?!?" . Maybe that was intended as a joke...

The point is... different people enjoy different things about playing a democracy game. Some just like voting in polls, some like testing, some like arguing about parlimentary procedure. Seems like you and I like a little of all the above

 

[cav scout]

Oh sommers you crafty fox. You know full well I wasn't saying that "consensus" and "majority" have the same dictionary meaning. I clearly said they aren't "mutually exclusive." That was a good college try though

My point is this. Let's not go overboard with procedure if we don't have to. I agree that playing "parliamentary procedure" just for the sake of being legalistic can be fun for some. But for most it's a total turn-off and we'd be walking down a primrose path if we start getting too legalistic in our forum. The reference to Roberts was tongue-in-cheek but if things ever get really confrontational (i hope not!) then it's a remedy.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I don't think we should include aesthetics or metal casting unless someone actually speaks up and says they intend to vote for them.

I do not feel comfortable with this philosophy... I think 's comment sums it up best...

The thing is that us regulars can follow all of this but for casual followers or new members it must be a nightmare trying to figure out what we're planning.

No wonder none of the new people that joined our team recently have posted!!

We should not be making up rules that exclude people who do not read every single post, every single day... at least not without some open vote on it... at a minimum.

There is an interesting paradox that keeps surfacing here. When it is poll time, we say "we dont need poll"... "the issue is already decided" and a poll is just "needless beauracracy." Then we start suggesting new rules (beauracracy) to structure the polls. Then I suggest that we vote on the suggested rule, and folks say, "no that is too much beauracracy."

I think that tech choice and city build sites are two issues that folks probably find the most fun to vote about and I think we should always poll them, even when we are fairly certain which side will win. And I think the reason there has been less posting from the new members is because we dont poll those two issues.

Some folks just might not be willing to read through all the threads to discover all the "semi-secret" polls that we engage in all the time. We all post in the threads to say "I vote we tech this!" or "I vote for this new rule." If we just make the vote public, and direct people to the appropriate thread to discuss the upcoming vote, folks might be inclined to read a thread in detail, to be able to make an informed vote on the poll. They might even start participating and helping, with intel, analysis, testing, research, diplo, etc.

There may be team mates who have checked into the forums thought "OK there is going to be a poll for Aesthetics, Metal Casting, and Masonry-> Monotheism. I want Metal Casting. I'll check back in later to see if the poll is up. When they come back and see that there never was any poll they might be dissapointed, I know I would be.
Some people might just want to vote in the polls and leave the rest to the regulars.

At any rate, the time has arrived to put up the poll, so that or Cavscout has some information to act on as far as moving the tech slider when our next turn comes. posted on 3/11 that poll had to go up by 3/14 at absolute latest. We all have a good idea how this is going to come out, but we need to show the rest of the team that we are willing to poll tech and city foundings at least.

I am posting the tech poll now. Of course if this terribly offends anyone the "Polling Rules" thread is still up. We can vote to conduct a series of polls to establish hard and fast polling rules.

Speaking of which, has proposed a rule that individual options on a poll should be suggested (I'm assuming you mean on the poll alert thread, is that right ?) by at least one person to be included on the poll. Do you mean to say that you want to vote on this rule or no? Is there anyone else that wants this rule?

 

[donsig]

I do not feel comfortable with this philosophy... I think 's comment sums it up best...

And just what did the say?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Hey WilliamofOrange, (and ALL new team members) Vote switching is not allowed... Our team had a pretty bitter controversy a while back related to vote changing. So in the future, try to avoid posting that you want to change your vote. Once you vote, you should try to keep your peace.

ah yeah. I saw that too. Oops, sorry. Not that it mattered in this case, but I see the point. I guess I could have wrote what I did without changing it. So, as Borat would say, "I choose to NOT!! change my vote."

But what if I want to change my vote to iron city first Sommers? Surely that would be permitted

All joking aside I think its important to foster open discussion and being able to say "hey I changed my mind" should be encouraged. If that person has cast a vote in a poll here (actually clicked a choice) then I suppose that should stand. But they should still be able to talk about how their position has evolved and that they would take back their vote if they could. Personally I liked it better when we tallied votes informally and people could change their votes...

There is no changing votes. My personal preference is irrelevant, all that matters is that we try to stay true to some Democratic process. So no Cavscout, it would ABSOLUTELY not be OK for you to change to Iron City. Sorry.

Informal tallying of votes caters unfairly to those of us who read all the posts everyday... Everyone else gets left out in the cold.. Part of the reason you might prefer it is because it unfairly favors you... because you read all the posts and threads. Try to think about it objectively... am I right? I don't want to offend or sound accusatory, just telling the truth IMO

The "no-switching" method reduces the chance that we will have confusing poll results, where a casual player will see one result when they check the poll, but then a different action when they check the log. Vote switching undermines poll results, and undermines closure. The poll should be the end of the debate, not the beginning.

I think this method (no switching) also encourages people to read the threads and think carefully before voting... Consider that has not voted yet, depite expressing favoring Gold first. I believe is genuinley trying to carefully consider all the options. I don't know what will ultimately choose, but I think it sets the proper example for all of us... Don't become "true believers" of a particular course of action, simply tailoring our "tests" and comments to suit our own pre-determined ideas about what is best.

I have been "red-hands" guilty of doing this, and being stubborn, and I plan on trying to follow 's example from now on... Regardless of what option eventually picks, has taken the lead in showing the correct way to cast a vote.

 

[WilliamOfOrange]

I agree. I don't know how often I will be able to read things on here every day, so I agree with what is said above. I will try to be more informed before polling, which is tricky, because you often have second thoughts because that is what they are by definition.