What should we do to ensure polling is fair?

[donsig]

I don't think having a poll option of "unfair poll" is a viable way of handling potentially bad polls. That's just going to delay the game if it triggers - we need a way to identify and replace such polls faster.

I also don't think requiring a majority on every decision is possible. We will NOT be able to stick with a 2 session/week schedule, unless all polls are single-day polls. And to forestall an arguement, until I see a concrete proposal, fully detailed, for continuous play, I don't care about it. It does make sense to recommend their use, and that I will support. Require them? No.

-- Ravenfire

Invalidating a poll (by whatever means we decide to use) does not need to delay the game. Nothing needs to delay the game. All we need is a mechanism in place for making decisons. If we all agree that an invalid and / or non-majority poll is a non-group decision and allow the appropriate official to make decisions when no group decision is made then we have a nice simple, clear-cut way to know what's going on. This system allows any citizen (office holder or no) to post any poll and have it be binding if a majority agree on one of the options. We also let anyone post instructions based on such a poll. If there is no majority group decision via a completed forum poll then an official can make the decision. This system gives citizens a check on officials and also allows officials some leeway to make choices when the group does not.

Yes, DaveShack in an 8/1/8 vote I would allow the official to legally choose the option getting only one vote. If you interpret abstain to mean I don't care then those 8 abstainers should not care which option is actually used, right? In reality, an official (looking to maintain electability) will rarely ignore sizeable blocks of voters.

No system is going to be fool proof or perfect. Let's go for a system that at least is clear-cut and simple to implement and has checks and balances.

 

[donsig]

I think we've reached a point in the discussion where we have two different proposals. The first is to use a person or committee to validate or invalidate polls. The second is to use some mechanism with the poll itself (such as a none of the above option) to invalidate a poll. It is conceivable to allow both methods. So, how do we decide this? We could do a multi-choice poll such as this:

How should we invalidate forum polls?

• Use a person or committe to invalidate polls
• Use an internal poll mechanism such as a none of the above option
• Abstain

This is a multi-choice poll - vote for all options you would like to see implemented.

This is a public poll.

This poll will be open for 7 days.

This is a general poll which will be followed up by discussion and polling to determine how to implement any option receiving a majority of votes.

Link to discussion thread(s).

Notes on the poll:
I don't care if it's public or private.
I don't care if abstain is included or not. In a multi choice poll the percentages are calculated on number of voters casting votes so abstain doesn't mess up the poll result percentages.
I think there is no rush to make this decision so a week long poll is ok. We don't need the answer to this poll to play the game so there is no game delay involved.
I am not including an interpretation clause because I am totally against those. My standard interpretation is that any forum poll option getting more than 50% of the vote is binding.

 

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Why make it multi-choice? And your own mock poll has an abstain, but you say you don't care about it?

See this poll for an example of another way an unfair poll can be invalidated.

 

[dutchfire]

How should we invalidate forum polls?

Use a person or committe to invalidate polls
Use an internal poll mechanism such as a none of the above option
Abstain

Should we invalidate polls at all? There should be a "don't invalidate polls" option IMO.

 

[donsig]

Should we invalidate polls at all? There should be a "don't invalidate polls" option IMO.

We could include that. I didn't because my impression is that we all see the need to invalidate bad polls. Of course what would we do if a majority vote to not invalidate polls AND to invalidate via some method?

Why make it multi-choice? And your own mock poll has an abstain, but you say you don't care about it?

What's so funny? I don't care about it because it's multi-choice where it means nothing. In a multi-choice poll a person can vote for every single option so a person can abstain and, well, not abstain by making an additional choice as well. The point is that the poll percentages are calculated based on the number of people voting so abstain really means nothing in a multi-choice poll - which is what the majority want it to mean. So I don't care if it's there or not. If this was a yes / no poll I would not include the abstain option.

The reason for making it multi-choice is the fact that we can have more than one system available to invalidate a poll. The idea here is not to chose the ONE AND ONLY method for invalidating polls but to see which methods are or are not acceptable so we can hone in on a consensus.

See this poll for an example of another way an unfair poll can be invalidated.

Don't even go there DaveShack. If I post this poll I will not include moderators stepping in and mucking about with our polls. The only reason I didn't raise Holy Heck in that new poll is that I decided to ignore the moderator tags and look upon the new poll as simply a new poll posted by a citizen. There really was no reason for Chieftess to use her moderator powers to change that poll. Yes, I know only mods can close polls like that but the new poll could have been posted by anyone who could have then posted in the needed things thread to close the faulty poll. (Disclaimer - I'm not sure what initiatives we have already passed concerning elections so I'm not really sure if any citizen can repost an election poll. Perhaps this will be the first case our judiciary looks at.) Also, aren't I technically breaking forum rules by publicly discussing a moderator action? If so, you or CT or any other mod can feel free to ban me since I couldn't do a flipping thing about it anyway, now could I?

 

[Falcon02]

I guess the "don't invalidate polls" option would essentially be saying generally invalidate it with a newer poll, within the current rules... ~shrug~

 

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

 

[dutchfire]

We could include that. I didn't because my impression is that we all see the need to invalidate bad polls. Of course what would we do if a majority vote to not invalidate polls AND to invalidate via some method?

We've got enough time, why not just split it in two polls?

Do we want to invalidate polls? Yes/No/(abstain)

And if Yes gets chosen, make a follow-up poll with options on how to invalidate polls.

 

[Octavian X]

A hybrid system for invalidation probably isn't all that hard to create, and with the appropriate checks and balances in place, it could work out nicely - though probably not very elegantly.

The first option is the presence of a mechanism within the poll - for instance, if we define an abstention (or some other option) as a vote against the validity of the poll, should a majority vote for that option, the poll is invalidated upon its expiration.

The other option for invalidation I would give to the judiciary, seeing as it already is a body that exists for examining whether or not certain actions are against the law. Two out of three justices agreeing on the question of validity would constitute a full ruling - in other words, no need for unanimous ruling.

There would probably be two methods for initiating a review of the poll:

1. At the request of a citizen, in which case justices must rule on the polls validity within, for example, 24 hours, of the request - in that time period, if only one justice posts a ruling, or if only two justices post post opposing rulings (thereby creating a tie) the appeal process described below starts immediately.

2. On of the justices, on his/her own motivation, declares a poll to be invalid, in which case both of the other justices must agree or disagree with that ruling within 24 hours. If no other justice issues a ruling, or if only one other justice posts a ruling that declares the poll valid, as above, an appeal immediately begin.

To prevent abuse of the second method for invalidation, an appeals process would have to be created. To make the process of appealing an invalidation/valdiation ruling easy, the poll would be laid out in a precise way as defined by an initiative. The poll would be a copy-and-paste deal, taking pre-agreed text right out of the initiative, simply saying something like "Do you believe that the following poll should be declared invalid?" with a link to the poll in question and prior judicial rulings on validity, and only yes/no options - any additional/changed text in the first post would automatically invalidate the appeals poll, necessary to prevent questions about the validity of the appeal.

This obviously is a first draft more than anything else, and probably needs to be cleaned up and streamlined. However, at least right now, it seems like a good way to consider validity, with checks against the potential for abuse.

 

[donsig]

How should we invalidate forum polls?

• Use a person or committe to invalidate polls
• Use an internal poll mechanism such as a none of the above option
• None of the above
• Abstain

This is a multi-choice poll - vote for all options you would like to see implemented.

This is a public poll.

This poll will be open for 5 days.

This is a general poll which will be followed up by discussion and polling to determine how to implement any option receiving a majority of votes.

Link to discussion thread(s).

Notes on the revised poll:
Lowered the time open to 5 days. Still see no rush here.
Added a none of the above option for those who think we should not invalidate polls at all.
I have no idea what we'd do if all the options get a majority.

 

[Methos]

I was part of DGI when the Censor went invalidating crazy, so I cringe at the thought of a Censor. If anything, I'd suggest that our three judicial officials are the ones who validate/invalidate polls, and they must agree unanimously (sp?) with each other to do it.

Edit: What is everyones opinions on making the three judicial officials combined be our Censor?

 

[DaveShack]

I don't see any need for the poll to be open that long. Most DG polls are decided (in the sense of the percentages being stabilized) before the 1st 48 hours have passed.

That doesn't mean I think the duration needs to be changed. I'll only be in a hurry if we get a poll which should be invalid before this issue is decided.

 

[Octavian X]

Rather than a multiple choice poll that might cause some confusion, would it be easier, donsig, if we simply added the option 'Some combination of the of the above options' in the number three spot of the poll (along with the possibility of an additional stipulation for a runoff to ensure a majority should that be necessary)?

 

[donsig]

Rather than a multiple choice poll that might cause some confusion, would it be easier, donsig, if we simply added the option 'Some combination of the of the above options' in the number three spot of the poll (along with the possibility of an additional stipulation for a runoff to ensure a majority should that be necessary)?

Well Octavian X, if we do a multi-choice poll then we'll know which of the two methods are acceptable to citizens. The idea is we pursue any option that gets more than 50% of the vote. So anyone wanting some combination of the two would just vote for both.

By adding a third option we do what we've always done, water the choices to the point where we will not have a majority decision. The way to avoid plurality decisons is to design polls that discourage them.

I'll try to post the poll this evening. With a five day period it will close on Tuesday night.

 

[Methos]

Donsig, I suggest adding to your poll that if you vote for one of the options not to vote for Abstain. Some of us (I mean them ) voted for players and Abstain in the DP poll. I'm not for certain exactly why I, I mean we, ... they did that.

 

[ravensfire]

Deleted to allow for DaveShack's action.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Vind2]

Is only TF able to view IP adresses?

 

[donsig]

Donsig, I suggest adding to your poll that if you vote for one of the options not to vote for Abstain. Some of us (I mean them ) voted for players and Abstain in the DP poll. I'm not for certain exactly why I, I mean we, ... they did that.

But it doesn't matter if they do that, does it? The idea in the DP poll is to see if a candidate is acceptable to a certain percentage of citizens. Voting for all candidates and abstain has no effect on the results (especially since abstian doesn't count anyway ). Same applies here.

The trouble with this poll though is the inclusion of a don't invalidate polls option. Anyone could vote for that as well as one or both of the invalidation options. What the heck would we do if all three options get a majority?