The Polling Act of 1655 AD

[grant2004]

I think you could probably invalidate Dave's poll for the fact that it has incorrect information in the OP, it says the chance of success is 67% however we know, that attacking from two squares away doesn't actually negate the river defense bonus, and the chance of success is actually 32% (I think that's what the other odd was).

On the issue of these two polls being about the same thing, they aren't actually, the results of Dave's poll should have no impact on the results of Donsig's because that keshik could have attacked or not attacked from either the flood plain tile (after Joe's move) or the hill tile (before it) without a change in odds, there is no way of achieving an inconsistent result from these two polls.

 

[Provolution]

Hehe, the echo of the German Longbowman means the same to Yasutan as the Kennedy Assassination to the US in terms of incurred national trauma and national legend.

 

[grant2004]

Actually I've been thinking about this one for a little while, you'll probably appreciate it as you seem to love referencing historical events Provolution.

In 1846 America began an aggressive war with Mexico, the war eventually resulted in the conquest of many of the current south western states. After the war however these states became a topic of controversy because of the issue of slavery and it's spread into these states. Some historians have argued that the Mexican war was a trigger for the American civil war which began shortly afterwards.

We can see the parallel in our game with our aggressive war against Germany resulting in a controversy which caused what can easily be called a civil war in the demogame, the difference being we were a lot faster at starting our civil war.

Anyway that was entirely off topic, back to the German Longbow's new life as a judicial test case.

 

[Provolution]

Hehe, that was the Missouri Compromise you were referring to.

 

[DaveShack]

I'm a little surprised we don't have a new poll replacing this one, as this poll has been declared invalid by a member of the judiciary.

The longbow poll stated the odds reported by the game. That was not incorrect information, in the sense that the poster didn't know and had no reason to believe it was incorrect. In fact, most of the people agreed that the odds reported by the game had to be correct. It doesn't matter what we know now, at the point in time the poll was posted it was correct according to the best information directly available at the time.

However, we're not here to argue correctness of polls in the ancient past, but to decide how to handle future polls. If it were me, I wouldn't include the part about multiple polls on the same subject. I expect lots of votes against the proposal because it's there. But what needs to be done is either remove the clause or don't, and post a new initiative poll -- and don't edit the OP.

We should define the circumstances under which OP edits are ok, since it's unreasonable to expect perfection in posting initiatives.

 

[grant2004]

Hehe, that was the Missouri Compromise you were referring to.

That's one of the causes yes, but I'm referring to another instance dealing specifically with the south western states, which gets much less mention than Missouri.

However, we're not here to argue correctness of polls in the ancient past, but to decide how to handle future polls. If it were me, I wouldn't include the part about multiple polls on the same subject. I expect lots of votes against the proposal because it's there. But what needs to be done is either remove the clause or don't, and post a new initiative poll -- and don't edit the OP.

We should define the circumstances under which OP edits are ok, since it's unreasonable to expect perfection in posting initiatives.

 

[donsig]

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:

No, Hyronymus, my use of the word mandatory does not invoke the clause of the constitution you refer to. A constitutional mandate is merely a game play instruction posted by an authorized official. At the time of posting the poll I was not an office holders and so I could make no mandate. The polls posted by both DaveShack and I about the movement of the keshik were clearly initiatives. Since both polls were about moving the same unit at the same time and were both open at the same time I fail to see how you can claim they were not concurrent polls about the same subject!

DaveShack has suggested this initiative be repolled. Given the level of relevant discussion I'd like to suggest that this proposal needs more discussion.

 

[DaveShack]

DaveShack has suggested this initiative be repolled. Given the level of relevant discussion I'd like to suggest that this proposal needs more discussion.

Either alternative is fine.

 

[Hyronymus]

I'm fine with a repoll but you know what I found amusing all the time since the first comments came? Noone complained about the omission of Abstain in the poll options. Everyone started about difficult things (of the past) yet noone noticed, or at least mentioned, the lack of the Abstain option.

I knew I forgot to include it immediatly after I posted the poll but being the psychogology student that I am I decided to watch the progress. That this would be invalidated wasn't unexpected for me but the grounds one had to find to invalidate made me smile, secretly .

Back to the topic: what failed to happen in the real discussion thread happened here: people discussed the proposal and even offered factual support for it. I'm willing to delete the requirement of simultaneous polls not being allowed in a new proposal but I'll be among the first to object to such practises when I think I have a case.

 

[donsig]

Hyronymus, some of us (like me) do not have time to visit the discussion threads. I visit the poll forum and the judiciary thread (when I'm in office). I only go to the discussion forum if I feel the need to start a discussion. (Then I try to take part in that discussion.)

Leaving abstain out is a good thing. That way it can be included or not as the pollster sees fit. (Unless there is a previous law requiring abstain.) Some polls are better off without abstain.

Frankly, I think we'd be better off if we did not try to pass a comprehensive polling act. I think it will only lead to more judicial cases. Why don't you let this lie dormat for now as an initiative? You could form a citizens group and use this proposal as a basis for examining all posted polls. This citizens group could be our poll watchdogs. The group could try working with pollsters who do not post proper polls and could even ask the judiciary to invalidate polls that are not up to snuff. I think if we all knew polls were being scrutinized by a citizens group we'd end up with far better polls. Such a group could also be positive - they could endorse or certify a poll as meeting the groups standards. This would not be a legal validation but if the group does it's work well then the judiciary would be hard pressed to invalidate a certified poll. The group could also be proactive by drafting templates for good polls. These templates could then be copied, pasted and edited when new polls are posted. The group could be the place to go to learn about what makes a good poll and what makes a bad poll. Heck, the group could even elect leaders and officers to perform it's work. I think such a program is preferable to trying to make hard and fast rules regarding polls.

 

[Hyronymus]

I still don't share your fear for an overload of judicial cases. Maybe in the beginning but I expect the Judiciary to use the concept of jurispudence too, whcih will enable them to rule swiftly in similar complaints.

 

[grant2004]

I'd actually expect the work load for the judiciary to decrease, if people can look at clear standards for what a valid poll is and what could invalidate it them I'd expect them to post fewer polls open to invalidation.

 

[Hyronymus]

I'd actually expect the work load for the judiciary to decrease, if people can look at clear standards for what a valid poll is and what could invalidate it them I'd expect them to post fewer polls open to invalidation.

Exactly my train of thoughts!

 

[donsig]

I'd actually expect the work load for the judiciary to decrease, if people can look at clear standards for what a valid poll is and what could invalidate it them I'd expect them to post fewer polls open to invalidation.

I think you and Hyronymus should look through the poll forum and see how many polls there would have been invalidated under this proposal. Then I think you both should re-read this thread to see how there were differing rulings in our hypothetical test case. This proposal does not give clear cut standards. It doesn't even give objective standards since it calls for nuetral this and neutral that. Nuetral is a subjective thing.

By passing this initiative you give malcontnents many, many more opportunies to shoot down polls on mere technicalities. Is that what you really want?

Is no one interested in spearheading the citizen's group approach I suggested?

 

[Hyronymus]

DaveShack put it nicely when he said this, donsig:

However, we're not here to argue correctness of polls in the ancient past, but to decide how to handle future polls. If it were me, I wouldn't include the part about multiple polls on the same subject. I expect lots of votes against the proposal because it's there. But what needs to be done is either remove the clause or don't, and post a new initiative poll -- and don't edit the OP.

Looking back at things of the past with current knowledge always uncovers stuff. What you describe means that we definetly need these rules, in my opinion. So that we won't make those mistakes again.

 

[donsig]

DaveShack put it nicely when he said this, donsig:

Looking back at things of the past with current knowledge always uncovers stuff. What you describe means that we definetly need these rules, in my opinion. So that we won't make those mistakes again.

You and DaveShack ever hear the phrase those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it? The purpose of looking back at these ancient polls from last term is to determine if the proposed rule would have avoided the controversy. I think the discussion here makes it clear that had this proposal in fact been law last term we still would have had much the same controversy. This discussion showed the author of the rule and a sitting member of the judiciary could not agree on how the rule would have applied to that situation since there is no agreement on whether two polls were about the same subject. This proposal does not give objective standards with which to judge the validity of polls. This proposal and it's subjective requirements and guidelines would have IMHO added another layer of controversy on top of the one we had making thing even worse. This is not an indictment of your rule writing ability Hyronumus. It is merely an acknowledgement that rule making itself is a very difficult thing to do. In order to close loopholes rules must be more and more detailed which makes them more and more difficult to understand and more and more restrictive. We are much better off without a detailed polling law.

We would be much better off if you'd use your talents to organize and lead a citizens group such as I described above that would encourage better polling.

 

[Hyronymus]

I'm not doomed for sure. I made this Polling Act because I looked back and saw many polls with many flaws.

 

[Perfection]

We should define the circumstances under which OP edits are ok, since it's unreasonable to expect perfection in posting initiatives.

NOBODY EXPECTS PERFECTION!

Moderator Action: It might be funny, but it's still spam.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[dutchfire]

What the ...

Does he have a search engine searching for the word perfection on CFC 24/7 or something?

 

[donsig]

I think those are the guys who would be examining polls if we pass an initiative like this one.