1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

The Polling Act of 1655 AD

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game II: Polls' started by Hyronymus, Aug 22, 2007.

?

Do you agree with the changes proposed in the Polling Act of 1655 AD on how we poll?

Poll closed Aug 24, 2007.
  1. Yes

    7 vote(s)
    58.3%
  2. No

    5 vote(s)
    41.7%
  1. Hyronymus

    Hyronymus Troop leader

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,866
    Gender:
    Male

    Poll Question:
    Do you agree with the changes proposed in the Polling Act of 1655 AD on how we poll?

    Poll Options:
    Yes
    No

    Poll type & duration:
    Public poll, lasts for 2 days

    Additional notes:
    Remember that this Polling Act can always be amanded in the future.
     
  2. Provolution

    Provolution Sage of Quatronia

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,102
    Location:
    London
    I will vote YES to this (in sheer spite to "The Founding Fathers" that block all new amendments).
     
  3. Tanktunker

    Tanktunker Missionary of Hate

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2007
    Messages:
    190
    What is this supposed to remedy?
     
  4. Hyronymus

    Hyronymus Troop leader

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,866
    Gender:
    Male
    I'm not going to summarise 7 pages of discussion here, if you read the proposal you will see what it's about and what it should prevent.
     
  5. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    The initiative itself must be present in the OP, not just a link. Especially for this poll -- which if passed will required exactly what I'm asking for.

    I would like to vote yes, if this minor problem is fixed and the proposal matches what I remember seeing before.
     
  6. Provolution

    Provolution Sage of Quatronia

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,102
    Location:
    London
    Hyro, please cut and paste in the 1625 proposal in the poll thread, and you may win a couple of votes.
     
  7. Hyronymus

    Hyronymus Troop leader

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,866
    Gender:
    Male
    Fixed, now vote :D!
     
  8. HUSch

    HUSch Secret-monger

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2005
    Messages:
    2,440
    Location:
    Germany
    What is the consistency of this? Many more legalism or judicary polls/decisions or will we make friendly gestures, then we needn't a new act.
     
  9. Provolution

    Provolution Sage of Quatronia

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,102
    Location:
    London
    This will make arbitrary polls more or less history, as proposed poll options would have to take place in a discussion. It would be much harder to avoid to poll something that 3-4 citizens presented as a poll option in the discussions. This would also make it harder for a wild-eyed citizen to poll something before the discussion had run its course.

    This proposal would create more order to the workflows of this game, and I am surprised this was not in place before I came in.

    Moderator Action: Wild-eyed can be seen as a derogatory term thus trolling. Please choose your words more carefully
     
  10. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Nope - the section you quoted is a Guideline. This initiative also listed Requirements, which must be present.

    Think of this as both a "You must do this when polling" and "Your poll will be better if you do these things as well" initiative. It both requires certain actions and tries to help people post better polls.

    -- Ravensfire
     
  11. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Read again please -- it says nothing about the options in the poll having to have been stated in the discussion, only that a discussion must have taken place.

    If even 1 citizen asks for a poll, as a citizen I expect there to be a poll. Either the official can open it, or the citizen can. This initiative does not change the underlying principle.

    There is nothing which says the discussion must have run its course, only that there has been a discussion. Of course citizens will have much less incentive to resort to polling to get the official's attention if officials actually respond to the citizen's concerns, not with platitudes like "all will be well".
     
  12. Provolution

    Provolution Sage of Quatronia

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,102
    Location:
    London
    All right, I will make another amendment to this, but at least Hyro tried to do the right thing, as opposed to a lot of others here. Shame the founding fathers close out all new ideas...

    Daveshack, I learnt my lesson with the German Longbowman....
     
  13. grant2004

    grant2004 Citizen

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,315
    Location:
    America
    Definitely a yes for me, I'm glad to see this amendment has finally come to a vote, it will certainly improve our polling process, but without needlessly restricting the rights of citizens.
     
  14. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,895
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    I cannot vote yes on this. This law will make more problems than it solves by opening the door to much legal action over polls. I shudder to think about serving on the judiciary if this initiative is passed.

    The clause about not being able to poll a subject that is already polled is extremely uncalled for and a knee jerk reaction to events of the last two terms. It is especially reprehensible since the later polls were many times put up to rectify poor but earlier posted polls. This clause let's someone pre-empt an issue by hastily posting a poll - the thing that caused the original repolls this law seeks to fix.

    I urge everyone voting on this initiative to imagine themselves on the judiciary being faced with the kinds of cases this law would bring about. Think about that and then cast your vote here.

    EDIT: After seeing that this poll has been edited I am asking the judiciary to look into its validity.
     
  15. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    The original OP had only a link to the discussion thread. After it was requested to be updated to include the actual law, the text from the thread was copied into the OP.

    If the objection remains given this information, it should be an easy thing to repost it as a new poll. That would give a cleaner audit trail.
     
  16. Provolution

    Provolution Sage of Quatronia

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,102
    Location:
    London
    Clearly, we need an "official discussion" amendment as well, to make sure a discussion runs its course over a set number of days, in order to avoid citizens preemptively polling their heart-case before all discussions had run its course.

    This is what Donsig wants to avoid. Individual citizens hijacking and locking a case by polling only one option before a discussion have presented other pollable options.
     
  17. Hyronymus

    Hyronymus Troop leader

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,866
    Gender:
    Male
    &%(#+#@!)#@i%

    Fine, the Polling Act has only been discussed for a few months but why not come up with solutions when it's being polled. Talking about having a discussion before something is polled...
     
  18. Provolution

    Provolution Sage of Quatronia

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2004
    Messages:
    10,102
    Location:
    London
    I think we need discussion act to go with this, to avoid people hijacking issues with polling preemptively before a discussion run its course.

    I am on your side Hyro, but that problem must be dealt with.
     
  19. Hyronymus

    Hyronymus Troop leader

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2003
    Messages:
    1,866
    Gender:
    Male
    I guess it comes down to what you prefer more: endless bickering in the discussion topic leading to the poll/in the poll topic or a clear-cut procedure for dealing with polls.

    You are misquoting.
    Again, this is only to prevent a subject being polled multiple times, at the same time, in different polls. Having multiple polls on the same subject at the same time inevitably leads to problems.

    You are exploiting people's sentiment. The kind of cases the Judiciary will be facing are, as I said earlier, clearcut though. Any citizen or Official can ask the Judiciary to review a poll if the poll fails any one or more requirements as described in the Polling Act or when any of the Acts mentioned in the jurispudence are violated.

    How difficult is that to imagine?

    So now making a poll even clearer is a crime too?
     
  20. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Then you give people the ability to hijack by just never ending the discussion, or waiting until the last moment to start the discussion.

    It can keep going forever like this, with law after law each trying to trump another loophole, or we can be nice from the beginning of each discussion so that people don't find a need to poll to get their point across. That way emergency "gotta start this poll now to prevent the game from continuing without my idea being heard" polls aren't a problem.
     

Share This Page