What should we do to ensure polling is fair?

[DaveShack]

Maybe we should stop arguing, and write up a small initiative, deciding on how abstain votes should be counted, see if it gets passed, and then come back to this.

We could just post Ravensfire's initiative.

 

[ice2k4]

@Methos I didnt really read in detail, but it seems that the issue is counting abstain votes in the majority or not. Removing the abstain vote doesn't seem to have come up here.

ie. Yes 10 votes No 7 votes Abstain 3 votes makes
Yes 50%
No 35%
Abstain 15%

without counting the abstain votes in the final percentages it makes

Yes 58.8%
No 16.6%

Used easier numbers, but let's say the yes % fell under 50 counting abstain votes, it would not fall under 50 if abstain votes weren't counted.

 

[Methos]

@Methos I didnt really read in detail, but it seems that the issue is counting abstain votes in the majority or not. Removing the abstain vote doesn't seem to have come up here.

Just looked back at Dave's post and your right, he talks about counting the abstain vote, not removing it. My mistake.

 

[DaveShack]

...raises hand

I believe that abstain should be kept. Consider the HoF mod poll and Mac players. Since the DG game is Windows based Mac players can't view the save anyway, therefore 'Abstain' is a valid option for them. What about polls on government types? What if I don't like any of the proposals, therefore shouldn't I be allowed to 'Abstain', thereby showing my support for none of the proposals.

What if I don't like any of the options, by not having the 'Abstain' you are saying I can't be a part of the process.

I agree that abstain should be present in the poll options. The "conflict" here is about whether abstain should be counted when determining a "majority" or the winner of a plurality.

The simple fact is 'Abstain' doesn't cause a problem if it is left as an option. The only time it causes a problem is when someone tries to use it to figure out a close vote. Realize, that even without the 'Abstain', more than likely it's still going to be a close vote.

I'm beginning to wonder if we should include a statement in our polling process that states if the 'Abstain' option gets greater than or equal to x% than the poll is invalid, or nullified due to the people. I'm not entirely sure on the exact nature of my suggestion, but if enough citizens agree its worth looking into I'd be willing to work on it.

We have tried in the past to have a measurement of the "quality" of the vote. Past DG's have used the "census" as that measurement. Generally speaking, the census would be the average number of people voting in the most recent election, and we would require some percentage of the census having voted on an issue to make the poll valid. It's usually been reserved for rule changes, with ordinary polls having no minimum vote requirement.

Often those in favor of a census argue that a vote of 2-1, or other suitable low number, should not be considered valid. Maybe an objective measurement of "enough" votes is worth discussion.

Edit: x-posted -- started writing it then took a 1 hour break to attend a class.

 

[Hyronymus]

I'm beginning to wonder if we should include a statement in our polling process that states if the 'Abstain' option gets greater than or equal to x% than the poll is invalid, or nullified due to the people. I'm not entirely sure on the exact nature of my suggestion, but if enough citizens agree its worth looking into I'd be willing to work on it.

Interesting train of thoughts, I for one didn't look at the Abstain votes from the other side. If we can agree on a value that is equal for all polls then Abstain votes can be used as a prerequisite for a valid poll. Such an equal value can be a set number or a set fraction of a number.

In the first case that would be: > 10 Abstain votes renders a poll invalid;
In the latter case that would be: >1/xth of the total amount of votes or 1/xth of the total amount of poll options renders a poll invalid.

 

[donsig]

Seriously though, show me another citizen who thinks abstain should count. There is a remote possibility that there are some posts I haven't read since the new forum opened. We certainly have a boatload of people who say abstain should not count.

Point given. But we still need SOMETHING to allow people who do want their vote to be counted and don't agree with any of the given options (think back to your hypothetical poll about declaring war when never isn't an option). We can keep abstain and not count those votes but include and option like this:

THIS POLL SUCKS. I'M NOT ABSTAINING BECAUSE I THINK THIS ISSUE IS IMPORTANT BUT I DO NOT LIKE ANY OF THE OPTIONS PRESENTED. PLEASE COUNT MY VOTE.

How's that guys? Can we use something like this?

 

[ice2k4]

So then let's pass an initiative like Ravensfire suggested.

If x% of votes are abstain, poll shall be declared invalid.

 

[Methos]

If x% of votes are abstain, poll shall be declared invalid.

Actually, that was my idea.

 

[730195]

It is probably useful to consider different types of polls. Some cover all the bases:

• Attack France this turn
• Do NOT attack France this turn

Here abstain makes little sense. Even if we throw out the poll, we will still enact one of the poll choices when the next turn comes.

Another poll:

• Attack France this turn
• Attack England this turn
• Attack Spain this turn

This offers a very reasonable meaning for abstain: if abstain wins, attack no one. Abstain would not be necessary if the poll added a "none of the above" option. I suspect most of the appeal of abstain comes from poorly formed polls, either by accident or intention. Perhaps every poll should have "forget this poll" as a choice. If that wins, the poll never happened.

An alternative could be a metapoll. If a poll doesn't IYHO offer valid alternatives, start another poll: "Shall poll #27 be cancelled?". Do the rules as they currently stand allow this form of poll?

 

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

 

[dutchfire]

Another poll:
Attack France this turn
Attack England this turn
Attack Spain this turn

Polls may only concern one option, so IMO this should be polled in two polls:

Poll 1:
Attack this turn? (Yes/No)

Poll 2: If Poll 1=Yes, who to attack? (France/Spain/England)

 

[Hyronymus]

Can I point everyone to my proposal too, I covered the variety of polls in it.

 

[ordinaryguy]

Can I point everyone to my proposal too, I covered the variety of polls in it.

Sure, it would be good for those newcomers and those wanting to find out the current state of the game

Where is it?

 

[DaveShack]

For the cases where the poll is unfair because critical options are not provided, why rely on enough voters protesting to tip the vote? Let's have a mechanism where someone invalidates the poll.

 

[730195]

As someone new to DG, I've been wondering similar things myself. Are all these machinations the actual attraction here? Is the emphasis on Democracy rather than Game? My personal inclination would be to appoint some reasonable person as PollMeister. This person would take requests from the citizens and turn them into polls. His job would be to ensure

• each poll is legal within whatever rules we have
• each poll offers a full range of choices (like including a "none of the above" if pertinent)
• no two current polls are asking overlapping questions thus raising the question of which has priority over the other

The PollMeister would not be concerned with the wisdom of the topics being polled, just with the logical consistency of the polls in general.

 

[dutchfire]

As someone new to DG, I've been wondering similar things myself. Are all these machinations the actual attraction here? Is the emphasis on Democracy rather than Game? My personal inclination would be to appoint some reasonable person as PollMeister. This person would take requests from the citizens and turn them into polls. His job would be to ensure
each poll is legal within whatever rules we have
each poll offers a full range of choices (like including a "none of the above" if pertinent)
no two current polls are asking overlapping questions thus raising the question of which has priority over the other
The PollMeister would not be concerned with the wisdom of the topics being polled, just with the logical consistency of the polls in general.

We had one last game, he was called the Censor.
The problem is finding a reasonable person who's willing to do the job and avoiding him being/becoming corrupt.

 

[dutchfire]

@ ravenfires original proposal

Polls must contain in the initial post a summary of the question and the reason for the question.

Is a link to the discussion thread enough? A summary might be quite large, and subjective.

And maybe add something along these lines:
The poll options must be inclusive, using an Other Option to make the poll inclusive is legal.

 

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Disregard the "all critical options" part, it wasn't really the point. The point was that if given a choice between requiring a majority including abstain or having some way of invalidating a poll so voters don't have to vote abstain in protest, I'd rather have polls be invalidated.

The judiciary reviewing polls would meet what I'm looking for, if they do it before the poll closes or goes into effect. An individual would be better for speed, but is subject to misuse.

 

[DaveShack]

As someone new to DG, I've been wondering similar things myself. Are all these machinations the actual attraction here? Is the emphasis on Democracy rather than Game?

My opinion is that a few people here get more enjoyment out of challenging rules or bending the rules to their will than they get out of civ. A few others would like to focus on the civ, but take up the task of defending the citizens against the 1st set of people in order to get past the rules and on to playing civ. A third group, bigger than the first two, are very into the democracy but not to the point they're demo crazy They are equally interested in the game. The biggest group just want to play the game and may even be somewhat bothered by the existence of the first three groups.

I'm not in the 1st group BTW.