The Polling Act of 1655 AD

[Provolution]

Simply put. If we have 3 fixed days to run a discussion, and present poll options as defined poll options (then the discussion will end at a defined GMT time), all the presented poll option on an official topic need to be polled as defined by the citizen posting it as a poll option. Then, a citizen can CC the official for not adding the defined option to the poll. Or, if the official is decent, will add the defined poll option in its pure and unaltered, unedited form to the poll.

This will be a good amendment

 

[DaveShack]

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.

Not necessarily. It's not easy to think of a reference, but you'll find I abhor both "always" and "never", especially in rules. For example if the forum rules said always ding someone if they use simulated swearing (@#$%^&), I'd have to give you an infraction for your above post. I'm allowed to use my judgement and say that wasn't really swearing, but the equivalent of banging the keyboard in anger.

Take this very issue though and consider Donsig's point on being on the Judiciary. How do we know it's the same subject? The "play Joe's move anyway" poll was on the same subject as the longbow poll from my point of view, and thus a blatant attempt to overturn my perfectly valid, single issue yes/no poll on the longbow. From another point of view, the two polls were on different subjects. By putting it into the law, now the Judiciary has to decide whether two polls with completely different wording are in fact for the same issue, or not.

 

[DaveShack]

Simply put. If we have 3 fixed days to run a discussion ...

This will be a good amendment

No it won't be, because the situation may demand a discussion which lasts 1 day or 4. Unnecessary delays are unacceptable, and so are premature ends to valid and substantive discussions.

 

[Provolution]

This is where we differ, DS. If we got 5 days between sessions, and 2 days for polls, there are only 3 days for discussions left. By agreeing to have a discussion run for 3 days (until the polling starts) and separate discussion time from polling time, we get a more organized and smooth processing of report-discussion-poll-instruction project flow. And yes, many (not you of course) agree to this, and would like this to happen.

The discussions can of course go on after the polling starts, but only pollable options placed in the discussions will be applied for the polls, if these options are posted before the deadline in the official discussions.

Please respect our view, and do not dismiss us as you do right now.

 

[DaveShack]

A hard rule won't work, period. Sooner or later, something will come up after the 3 days of discussion, which changes what should be in the poll.

A guideline is fine. I'd love to plan to play every 5 days with 3 discussion and 2 poll, but I'm not interested in making a suicidal move in the game if we discover on the 4th day that the correct option isn't in the poll.

 

[Provolution]

There could be an override clause of course, but it should be a basic rule for the smooth running of the game. I think some players would like to see more order in this processing, and a permanent end to the chaotic things we have seen.

With an override clause (effectively delaying the play-session), this will work out as planned). But making this override clause more an exception or special case, no one will be that tempted to use it routinely to delay the play.

 

[Hyronymus]

Take this very issue though and consider Donsig's point on being on the Judiciary. How do we know it's the same subject? The "play Joe's move anyway" poll was on the same subject as the longbow poll from my point of view, and thus a blatant attempt to overturn my perfectly valid, single issue yes/no poll on the longbow. From another point of view, the two polls were on different subjects. By putting it into the law, now the Judiciary has to decide whether two polls with completely different wording are in fact for the same issue, or not.

Maybe it's me then but I think fo the Judiciary as a group of educated man, not a bunch of morons. Surely they can tell if a poll covers the same area as a different poll?! And if they need to work for it then they should.

 

[Provolution]

Hmm, I am not so sure about the Judiciary. I am not saying they could be a bunch of morons, but on the other hand, not as capable as the word Judiciary could signify.

 

[donsig]

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.

Yes, I am still objecting. An edit is an edit and we should not rely on personal testimony as to what was there before, especially on an initiative as far reaching as this one.

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.

Baloney. There is (and never has been) a democracy game law, rule, or tradition that says something cannot be polled while discussion is still going on. (With the sole exception of CC trials.) There IS a tradition of continuing discussion within a poll thread. The timing of a poll should depend on when the poll's decision needs to be ready and not on whether we've all talked about it till we're done talking about it. We should not make a law that limits either our discussion of a topic or our polling of it.

We do not need new laws we need citizens who can be reasonable and we need officials who willl be responsive to the wishes of the citizens. We need to work on the DG culture, not the DG rules. One the one hand we get officials who just want to get elected for the sake of salving their egos (and who don't do anything) or we get officials who want to ram their agendas through by any means regarless of what the group wants. Then we have citizens who are so wishy-washy they make Charlie Brown look like The Terminator.

Part of this unreasonable culture is the expectation that playing a democracy game means that if we are all nice, follow forum rules, listen to the moderators when they admonish us, and just reasonably discuss the game we're trying to play, we'll all come to the same conclusions about what moves should be made. This expectation (and our general wishy-washiness) means we cannot handle disagreements of any kind. Every time we face an issue the group is split on we have controvery, hard feelings are generated and people lose interest. The answer is not to make more rules that will also drive people away. The answer is to change the DG culture. We have to accept that we are going to disagree on some things. We can try discussion to arrive at a consensus but when that fails we have to use polls to bring about group decisions. We need to work on creating a culture of fair polling practices. Passing a law such as the one proposed is NOT a step in that direction.

Maybe it's me then but I think fo the Judiciary as a group of educated man, not a bunch of morons. Surely they can tell if a poll covers the same area as a different poll?! And if they need to work for it then they should.

Last term's judiciary was not composed of morons but they were not DG legal experts either. Imagine yourself on the judiciary Hyronymus. The case before you is the question of whether DaveShack's longbow poll and my reloading poll are about the same subject or not. What would you decide?

I don't have to wait for your answer to point out that DaveShack and I (both current members of the judiciary) would rule differently on this case.

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.

If a discussion has degenerated to endless bickering then it's time to poll it! Only a FAIR poll (one that EVERYONE sees as fair) will end the bickering in a group decision that we can all live with.

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.

I agree that leads to problems but there are also times it is necessary. Go back to the longbow controversy. DaveShack saw that as one topic (illegaly gained information) and I saw it as another (an action by the authorized DP). Neither of us was alone in seeing it from our respective perspectives. DaveShack's initial poll was hastily posted and was not fair. The ONLY recourses available to those with the other perspective were 1) submit to DaveShack's view of the world or 2) post another (hopefully fairer) poll. This proposal would not have avoided that controvery, it would only have changed the nature of the subsequent legal actions.

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.

As I've been trying to point out, judcial cases are not always clearcut. Do some thinking about the recent longbow polls and try to imagine how that controversy would have unfolded under your proposal. I expect that many, many polls would be tossed out if this propsal passes.

So now making a poll even clearer is a crime too?

Now who is playing on people's sentiments? I did not say it was a crime, only said this poll should not be considered to be valid.

 

[Provolution]

Technically, Donsig is right about the legality issue. I voted yes, but Donsig is in his right about the legality.

 

[Hyronymus]

I would rule that they are too similar, donsig and declare them both invalid. And sorry for trying to frame you with the edit. This was the last time I'm honest about my edits as frankly, noone seems to give a damn. People who edit their posts are liars anyway!

 

[donsig]

I would rule that they are too similar, donsig and declare them both invalid. And sorry for trying to frame you with the edit. This was the last time I'm honest about my edits as frankly, noone seems to give a damn. People who edit their posts are liars anyway!

No apology needed - I have not been offended by anything in this thread. My objection to the edit has nothing to do with your honesty about the edit. It is based on the the need to have a clear and undisputed record of what is being voted on. We do not want to get into the business of deciding if a forum member is honest or not in his or her edits. If we unconditionally accept your word then we must extend that acceptance to everyone else. You may be honest here but will everyone always be honest when they edit a poll?

Thanks for your answer to the hypothetical case. You and I on the same bench would cancel each other's votes on such a case, leaving the decision to the remaining justice. I'm intrigued by your statement that you would have invalidated both polls. I can see how your thinking invalidates the second poll (since you see it as the same subject as the first) but on what grounds would you invalidate the original poll? Are you agreeing with me that it was an unfair poll? Please continue this excellent what if game and give us the legal reasons (based on your proposed inititative) that you would use to invalidate the two polls.

 

[Hyronymus]

My reasoning is that if you find too many arguments in favour of either poll you should tell the poll creators to confer with each other and come up with a poll they both can agree upon. That way you prevent mass confusion, something I as important too.

 

[DaveShack]

Poll Invalidations
Poll Invalidations are used to allow bad polls to be canceled. To invalidate a poll, any member of the Judiciary posts in the poll thread clearly stating that they are invalidating the poll and the reasons for the invalidation. This must happen within the time limits specified by law.

Since Donsig has said the poll should be invalidated on grounds of having had its OP edited (regardless of intent), we're now at the point that this decision would need to be appealed, or a new poll opened. To make things easier I'll confirm that the ruling would be sustained in an appeal.

 

[Provolution]

We could also have a poll, whether this poll is valid or invalid.

 

[donsig]

My reasoning is that if you find too many arguments in favour of either poll you should tell the poll creators to confer with each other and come up with a poll they both can agree upon. That way you prevent mass confusion, something I as important too.

That reasoning is based on your proposed law? Surely I am missing something here.

In essense the answer you have given goes back to the wishy-washy culture I wrote about earlier. You expect two people who disagree completely on something to just walk away from the polls they've posted, confer, reach agreement on a new poll and post it. If the two people could have agreed in the first place what need would there have been for a poll? Your thinking works great in a world where everyone agrees - but that's a world where polls (and even rules) are not needed.

Please try again, this time assuming DaveShack and I could not agree on what constituted a fair poll. (Not an unreasonable assumption by the way.) I'd like to hear how you would rule in the hypothetical case and please specify what clause (or clauses) you'd use from your proposed law to invalidate the two polls.

 

[Hyronymus]

Let's analyse the matter at hand.

What you want to know from me is how the Judiciary (or in fact anyone) can determin if poll A covers the same subject as Poll B. A few give-aways to that would be:

• Both polls ask an opinion on the same issue
• Both polls have comparable poll options
• Both polls originate in the same discussion topic

With just these 3 give-aways as my guide I look at the Longbow polls. The first poll was about killing the longbow, created by Daveshack on July 3rd 2007.(http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=229779). You then asked for invalidation of the poll, which was found to have no merit on July 5th 2007. In an attempt to get more details though, grant2004 created successive poll on July 6th (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=230194). This poll was followed by another poll by DaveShack on July 7th (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=230332). I assume that the second poll was still open at that time that the third poll was created. There we would have a problem under my polling act: two polls covering the same subject.

Or, do they cover a slightly different topic? I say they do because the poll by Grant2004 explicitly deals with the second Keshik while DaveShack's poll of July 7th deals with the first ("original") Keshik.
And what if I ruled that they covered the same subject? I would've locked the last poll.

 

[donsig]

Or, do they cover a slightly different topic? I say they do because the poll by Grant2004 explicitly deals with the second Keshik while DaveShack's poll of July 7th deals with the first ("original") Keshik.
And what if I ruled that they covered the same subject? I would've locked the last poll.

Interesting analysis Hyronymus, but it is incomplete and not one I totally agree with. I'm also not sure I understand what you are saying. Earlier you had said you'd invalidate both polls. Now you are not only talking about different polls you seem to be unsure about whether these polls are on the same subject or not. As I tried pointing out, judicial cases are not always clear cut. Here is my reasoning on this hypothetical case:

The first poll you link to seems to have been closed before the second one you linked to was opened. Also, as you indicated, these two polls were about different units, though still about attacking the longbow. I see no reason to invalidate either of these polls.

The third poll you link to was opened when the second was still active, but again they are about two different units. In my opinion the third could therefore not be invalidated under your proposal as being a poll about the same subject.

There was another poll though. This one was opened on July 7 by me. It was opend after the second one you link to but before the third one you link to. It is about the unit being polled in the first and third polls you linked to. Therefore, under your proposal, it is about the same subject as the first and third but not the second. It could not be invalidated on the grounds of being about the same subject as these two polls because the first was already closed and the third had not yet been posted. The third would have been invalidated since it was on the same subject as the poll I posted. Being invalidated, I would not have had any reason to post my second poll.

Do you agree that the third poll you linked to would have been invalid under your proppsal since it was of the same subject as the poll I linked to?

 

[Provolution]

This entire game (yes, I have been reading back even to the first discussions about the constitution) has been cursed by bad organization, law-writing and so on. One thing is to make a simple ruleset, another thing is to make it arbitrary, skewed and geared to cater only to minority gaming interests.

I think several of us would like to see a demogame with officials with real powers, this more and more looks like a Socialist Commune with internal rivalries (Paris 1871, Leipzig 1848 and other city rebellion organizations) and less like the real Civ Governments I sort of hoped for in prior demogames.

I like the DP institute, but what have been done to the dismantlement of official powers have gone too far. I hope this mistake is not repeated in next demogame. Patching this ugly sister of a system up is not a very thankful service with the present political landscape at hand.

 

[Hyronymus]

That you cannot agree with it is "not my concern" to put it boldly. We are all entitled to our view on things, aren't we.

And no, I don't agree that the 3rd poll I linked too (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=230332) should've been declared invalid. DaveShack's question is "Attack with the full-strength keshik before EOT?" while you ask "Should Joe Harker's keshik move be made mandatory?". I have the idea that your poll was an immdediate reaction to Provolution's topic that he'll attack with the Keshik regardless of the poll outcome. But even if it wasn't, your poll question is if a totally different nature. You don't ask if the Keshik should attack (like DaveShack does) but if it should be made mandatory.

Your poll covers the Section C.3 points a & b of our Constitution:

Article C - Decision Making

1. All decision making power within the Democracy Game is derived from the collective rights of all the citizens.
   
2. The Power of the People can be delegated to officials of the game in one or more of the following ways, or in other ways which may subsequently be discovered.
   • By Initiative in the form of a completed forum poll initiated by any citizen.
   • By Mandate in the form of game play instructions posted in the forum by a duly elected official with legal authority in the area covered by said instructions.
   • By Constituency in the form of citizen comments in favor of a decision, in a forum discussion.
   • By Designated Player Action in the form of actions made (and logged) during game play.
3. In the event that two or more such delegations of the Power of the People are in conflict, the following hierarchy shall determine which decision has precedence.
   • An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type, including an earlier initiative on the same subject.
   • Mandate supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier mandate on the same subject) except an initiative or another later initiative.
   • Constituency supercedes only designated player actions.
   • Designated Player Action does not supercede any other type of decision.
4. A lower form of law may specify procedures and restrictions on implementing decision types, except
   • Initiative must always be allowed
   • No decision shall require more support than an amendment to the Constitution.