Runoff Poll - Vote on New Polling Rules (Current Turn 77)

[Sommerswerd]

Sommers has done an excellent job with the mechanics of posting polls and the Sommers System will lead to polls that avoid many of the pitfalls Mikotian pointed out. When we do need polls I hope Sommers will continue to take charge of the poll posting process.

I am absolutely opposed to automatically polling certain decisions (like next tech).

OK... I will go out on a limb here, despite the old adage "No good deed goes unpunished"

If the Don will end the boycott AND vote in THIS POLL, I will agree that we will not poll 'next tech' when we have UNANIMOUS "POSTED" support for a particular tech (as I think we had for Masonry/Monotheism).

I have made numerous changes to the so-called "Sommers system" (cute) polling process AS A DIRECT RESPONSE to the Don's complaints.
1. I stopped using the objectionable size 5 font
2. I started posting deadlines in the poll alert as requested
3. I asked how to "sticky" a thread as requested. I have not "stickied" a "Poll Alert" thread yet because:
a. I am waiting for the turn-log to be unstickied as per Donsigs request so there are not too many "sticky threads"
b. Donsig is boycotting polls so what does it matter?
4. I have extended poll deadlines to accomodate requests (to wait for Herviov's dotmap for example)

All these concessions... and Donsig still institutes a boycott To me, that is an indication that the requests were not genuine. Donsig just does not want polling... no matter what...

This is why I predict that even my latest promise not to poll unanimously posted 'next tech' decisions will make no difference... Donsig will probably slap my face again and continue the boycott. I hope I am wrong (it would not be the first time)

 

[damnrunner]

That said, I think we should use polls wisely for making decisions that can't be made through discussion alone. And I am absolutely opposed to automatically polling certain decisions (like next tech).

What are some specific polls you would not be absolutely opposed to?

I ask because I would like to have a poll along these lines to see if you would vote in it.

 

[donsig]

What are some specific polls you would not be absolutely opposed to?

I ask because I would like to have a poll along these lines to see if you would vote in it.

I am opposed to polls for the sake of polls or polls that just seek to encourage participation. I am against polls as the be all end all 'official' way to make a team decision. I'm also opposed to polls like this one that I think was put up before adequate discussion of the issue was made.

If you want an example of the kind of poll I think we need then you don't have to look further than the one about metal casting versus aesthetics next. That's a poll we needed and it was done in an excellent manner. It has been very difficult not voting there.

If the Don will end the boycott AND vote in THIS POLL, I will agree that we will not poll 'next tech' when we have UNANIMOUS "POSTED" support for a particular tech (as I think we had for Masonry/Monotheism).

Sommers, I would hesitate to vote in this poll even if I ended the boycott. I've said many times in this debate that I think any team member should be able to call for a poll. That's not one of the options this poll gives. I understand I was the only one to vote for that originally and this is a run-off but I don't like any of the choices presented here. If you had included an 'other' or an 'abstain' option then I'd take your deal and cast a vote here. I object to this poll as being premature and unnecessary.

I'm willing to give up the poll boycott if we can all agree on a polling system we can live with. For me that would include:

• Letting anyone on the team ask for a poll. (This does not mean I encourage everyone to ask for lots and lots of polls. It's like free speech. I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight for your right to say it.)
• We should also continue to do the straw poll / vote tally in the discussion threads to gauge whether we really need a poll.
• When a poll is requested and the poll alert goes up we should be able to transfer the discussion to that thread. If we use one sticky thread just for poll announcements then discussions about the poll will happen in the appropriate thread. The idea is that we keep the discussion about the decision and the coming poll in the same thread.
• When a poll is posted we include as votes any posts made by people on the issue who don't get a chance to vote in the poll. If someone makes their opinion known and then missed a poll vote their voice should still be included.

If we can make a polling system along these lines then I'm all in.

 

[damnrunner]

If you want an example of the kind of poll I think we need then you don't have to look further than the one about metal casting versus aesthetics next. That's a poll we needed and it was done in an excellent manner. It has been very difficult not voting there.

So the only poll we have really had was one you like?

I'm willing to give up the poll boycott if we can all agree on a polling system we can live with. For me that would include:

• Letting anyone on the team ask for a poll. (This does not mean I encourage everyone to ask for lots and lots of polls. It's like free speech. I may not agree with what you have to say but I will fight for your right to say it.)
• We should also continue to do the straw poll / vote tally in the discussion threads to gauge whether we really need a poll.
• When a poll is requested and the poll alert goes up we should be able to transfer the discussion to that thread. If we use one sticky thread just for poll announcements then discussions about the poll will happen in the appropriate thread. The idea is that we keep the discussion about the decision and the coming poll in the same thread.
• When a poll is posted we include as votes any posts made by people on the issue who don't get a chance to vote in the poll. If someone makes their opinion known and then missed a poll vote their voice should still be included.

If we can make a polling system along these lines then I'm all in

You can ask for a poll whenever you like - nothing stops you. Your only risk is annoying other players. However, I don't think that an unofficial poll like this should lock our team into a certain course of action. But it is a fair way to influence debate on an issue.

We still do straw polls and still are making decisions that way.

Moving the debate on an issue to the poll thread is great - but reality is that our team gets off topic and this will happen no matter what.

Including votes of those who posted but did not vote. I think our team would accommodate this out of a sense of fairness. Lets say someone is out of town and was not posting for a week but had made their views well known beforehand. That makes sense. But if someone claims to be purposefully boycotting and is obviously able to vote - then that is risk you face for being a pain.

 

[donsig]

Your only risk is annoying other players. ... But if someone claims to be purposefully boycotting and is obviously able to vote - then that is risk you face for being a pain.

Seems like you're referring to me. As for being annoying, I have also been annoyed by others on this team. This post of yours adds to that but I'm sure you knew the risk when you wrote it.

As for boycotting a poll I could vote in, well, I think I did vote many times for aesthetics. As I said before if the team chooses to ignore my vote on this just because I won't vote in a poll then so be it.

 

[Indiansmoke]

BTW have a look at this post by Krill http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7926486&postcount=386

This was exactly my fear as well..

 

[Provolution]

Well, by having 2-3 sponsors, we avoid frivolous polls. Or, the other option, is to make Kaleb decide on all things, but then we would be more of an advisory board than a team. Its either Kaleb having the final say, or that we vote on major decisions, its that simple.

I would also prefer we begin to have some elections on positions as well, as players can present what they intend to do in a position, and get a vote to support enacting that mandate. I am against micropolling minor actions, but I think that city sites, major technology choices as well as wonders warrants a poll. Right now, we got 3-4 players portraying the rest of the players as inferior or stupid if they make a proposal, and they boycott polls, as they got Kalebs ear, thus, they do not need any polls. If we voice an opinion, they use all their energy to shoot us down, if they are in minority, or risk minority, they reject polls or other decisions. This is hopeless.

It cannot go on like this, its disheartening and reduces a broader interest in the game.

But sure, if you are happy the way its run, I guess its hard to change it.

 

[Kaleb]

Can we have a poll on the most ridiculous post so far? I know which one will get my nomination...

 

[donsig]

Well, by having 2-3 sponsors, we avoid frivolous polls. Or, the other option, is to make Kaleb decide on all things...

I can think of many more options besides these two Provo.

I think that city sites, major technology choices as well as wonders warrants a poll.

These, like any other major decision we must make, only warrant a poll when there is no clear majority in favor of one option, or if the minority feels it needs the decision validated by a poll. This was the case with the aesthetics versus metal casting poll. Discussion clearly showed more of us wanted aesthetics next and not metal casting. The metal casting minority brought up the specter of a 'silent majority' that would tip the poll vote in their favor. Yet with two aesthetics supporters boycotting the poll that option still prevailed. There was only one vote in the poll that wasn't counted in the prior discussion thread and that vote was for aesthetics. We did not need that poll to make the decision - we needed it only to prove what was already apparent.

Right now, we got 3-4 players portraying the rest of the players as inferior or stupid if they make a proposal, and they boycott polls, as they got Kalebs ear, thus, they do not need any polls. If we voice an opinion, they use all their energy to shoot us down, if they are in minority, or risk minority, they reject polls or other decisions. This is hopeless.

Well, now the Super Six or Supreme Seven is reduced to an inner cabal of 3 or 4 - it's gonna be tough to determine who is in this cabal. Maybe we need a poll. I've not noticed anyone being portrayed as inferior or stupid by anyone else. Some of us do a good enough job of that for ourselves. I think we do need polls and I've argued that any of us should be able to ask for and have a poll posted if we feel one is needed. I have argued that specific polls we've had were unnecessary (like the one for masonry/monotheism) and others were premature (like this one). I've never said we should never have polls. I've only argued that we use them as a last resort and try making most of our decisions through discussion. I've listened to the facts presented in discussions and based my decisions on those. It seems the best way to make decisions, does it not?

 

[Sommerswerd]

BTW have a look at this post by Krill http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7926486&postcount=386

This was exactly my fear as well..

Hey Smoke did you mean "Lord Parkin?" Krill did not say much... My response to DMOC & Lord Parkin:http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7928208&postcount=387

 

[Sommerswerd]

Just a reminder that this poll will close in about 9 hours. Great participation so far, we actually had a "simple majority" of the team participate in the poll (meaning more team mates participated than did not, even if you include our "phantom" members who never participate at all, in the calculation), {13 votes so far out of 24 total team members} which has been rare for all polls. Thanks to All... Anyone who has not voted yet should consider weighing in, but so far, it looks like our Final Runoff will most likely be between requiring Two Persons to request a poll, and Three Persons.

The second runoff poll will serve as the final word on the matter, and we will have a clear, concrete rule on Official, Binding Polls, moving forward. Im excited to be close to reaching a conclusion on this issue.

I would also like to congradulate those participating in the poll boycott, for having the fortitude to voluntarily forgoe their vote (and thus their right to be counted) in these team decisions in order to make a larger point of principle. Especially in the face of an issue that is obviously important to the majority of the team. Dissent is important in every Democracy and our team has shown itself to be a great one.

 

[Bolkonski]

The usual way of putting something to a vote is to have a proposer and seconder. This is to ensure that the proposer is not a complete whacko and also to allow a minority issue to be heard.

I would suggest though that we try to reach a consensus on most issues and only put something to a vote if it is either a very contentious or a very serious issue - otherwise we just get slowed down too much.

 

[donsig]

Welcome back Bolkonski. I hope you join in more often now.

@Sommers - this poll is easy to forgo since I don't like any of the options available.

 

[Provolution]

Welcome back Bolkonski. I hope you join in more often now.

@Sommers - this poll is easy to forgo since I don't like any of the options available.

Very well then, you have stated your mind, and we are stating ours. It seems a proposed and a seconder for a poll wins out, and that is an effective way to handle it.

 

[cav scout]

Not so fast Provo- the top two vote getters in this poll are tied.

 

[Provolution]

I am fine with 3 people too. Anything is better than the grab-and-get anarchy we got now.

 

[Kaleb]

We have grab-and-get??? As far as I am aware every poll we've done recently had more than 2 or even 3 people in support of it...??? At the very least Sommers and yourself supported all the latest polls, right?

 

[Sommerswerd]

As everyone can see, the runoff will be between 2 persons being required and 3 persons being required to get a poll posted.

Since "IAM decides" is no longer in the running, I will immediately stop "unilateral" control over what issues we poll. I will wait for requests for a poll before posting a poll (As most folks are probably aware, I was generally already doing this).

Until the final result of the runoff poll, I will ONLY post a poll that has AT least 2 supporters, (automatically adding myself as the third supporter).

Once we have a final vote on the rule, I will no longer automatically add myself as a supporter. This seems like the fairest way to proceed.

 

[damnrunner]

Of course if one person + you want a poll that can also work.

 

[Provolution]

The idea of both proposals is to stop frivolous polls, so i agree with sommers interpretation.