Which Threads Should be Closed to Public Input

[Bill_in_PDX]

Given the conflicts already beginning again surrounding voting threads and the participation of those not in the Senate, I think it may be a good idea to flesh out this issue a bit further.

I'm not looking to generate new law here, instead, I am looking for discussion, and perhaps even some consensus.

The official view is that some threads are indeed off limits to the general citizenry, and can be enforced as such.

My personal view is that the only threads specifically laid out as such in our laws, are those pertaining to turn chat. I think that the rules on turn chat instructions are serving us well, and would not be in favor of mucking up the clarity in those threads.

However, I don't see any reason why other threads, specifically voting threads, cannot be a forum for citizens to express their opinion to either the cabinet, judiciary, or senate. We have a long history of citizens doing just that throughout game one, and these posts were never questioned in all but one famous case.

I am open to the idea that other threads might need this exclusivity, but I am currently of the opinion that open communication has a higher value than noise reduction in almost all cases.

What do others think?

Bill

 

[disorganizer]

i second you, bill. totally. every voice against free speach is bad... except of course game-i information ;-)

 

[Octavian X]

The official poll threads should remain closed to only the votes. No discussion whatsoever. Questions, and more discussion should be taken via pm, or in the original discussion thread. Everybody already had a chance the discuss in the proposal, and still has a chance.

 

[donsig]

There are certian informational threads, like the turn chat instruction and citizen registry, that should not contain extraneous posts. We're trying index threads now and they shuld be kept clean as well.

I see nothing wrong with continuting our tradition of citizen input into cabinet/council and senate vote threads. It is not too difficult to count the votes when there are less than ten who vote. I do think it would be a good idea to have a vote thread template for the first post that lists those eligible to vote.

 

[chiefpaco]

I don't have a strong anti-post in polls sentiment, but I am against it. I know I have posted in polls many times, and will continue to do so, as we are allowed, but I disagree for a few reasons:

- Polls should be most often preceeded by discussion. If there is more to be added, the discussion is still there. I also hope people can make up their minds through reading and participating in the discussion thread.

- I don't think people should be pressured into revealing their vote nor giving reasons why they vote for a certain way. I think this intrudes on the right to vote.

- A closed thread with a vote is a very clean environment to vote in. I sometimes wonder if the first person to have a big "NO" in their post really influences voters. I think we might force voters to be a bit more educated when they vote if there are no easy answers below to choose.

This is not restricting free speech. I only propose voting privacy, freedom from pressure, and encourage voting for your own reasons, not someone elses.

Of course, the index threads and the turn chat threads need to be kept clean.

 

[Almightyjosh]

I agree! Seeing as most often the posts are by disgruntled persons accosting the senators/leaders about their choices (looks pointedly at donsig ) there is no real need for discussion invoting threads. There is always discussion beforehand.

Furthermore, our voting is in theory secret ballot. The only reason that people must show the way they vote in these polls is so that we know it is only senators/leaders voting. It is not fair to accost people on the way they are voting.

 

[disorganizer]

i also think posting in polls should be allowed, as it may show the poll being not properly discussed or may show totally new points. denying discussion there will maybe prevent us from taking opportunities.

 

[Octavian X]

If a poll is invalid, somebody should post that the poll is invalid.

I'd still be against posting in senate and cabinet polls. If a poll is already open, it's a bit to late to try to get that changed. Discussion was already held for people to post comments, ask questions, and such. And even if the discussion thread is closed, there's still the pm system.

 

[disorganizer]

i second X! exactly my thought! if the judges say its invalid, they should post in the poll and then the mods could even add it to the first post of the poll to reflect it.

 

[Shaitan]

I prefer a clean voting environment. Just as it's illegal to campaign in a polling place in RL it should not be allowed in the game. Citizens also don't stand on the floor with a bullhorn while Congress is voting.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I can understand the sentiment to be able to vote without perceived persacution. That should be a protected and fundamental right.

However, where do you draw the line then? As I noted, there have been literally hundreds of violations of the posting in senate and cabinet voting threads by non-members.

Is it only when a citizen crosses a line and begins to demand explainations when there is some evidence that the Senate didn't know what it is voting on? I am concerned that we are supporting a level of hypocracy here.

As to the vote being private, that could well be done via PM to someone(s) if there are elected officials, intended to be answerable to the public, feeling threatened by citizens demanding to know what they think.

I think traditionally the citizens have had a right to know how their elected leaders vote and the reasons why. Remember, these are not private citizens, they are elected leaders.

Bill

 

[Danke]

I think people should be allowed to post opinions in the Poll threads, for a variety of reasons:

1. They may not have been aware of the discussion, because of thread naming, forum attendance timing, or a number of other reasons.
2. Not all polls are preceded by a discussion (though this is discouraged) or by a discussion leading to consensus even on what the poll should be.
3. There are good reasons to want to explain one's vote in any poll, and especially an election poll. This is not necessarily electioneering.
4. A senate poll is *not* an index or informational space. And senate polls are likley to have the least public input prior to the vote. I see no reason to keep people from piping up if they want.

We seem to be focusing a lot lately on what citizens are not allowed to do, when the game should really encourage citizens to *do* things. I don't see the harm in the potential for a slightly messy voting environment.

I also disagree with CP that an early vote might unfairly influence the poll. I think there are a lot of examples where it went the other way.

my .02 gp

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

So to all,

Apparently there is some confusion and disagreement as to posting in officals voting polls.

Just to add to that confusion, I think I will post an informational poll on the topic.

Bill

 

[Padma]

I really hate to put added restrictions on citizens. Yet, I do feel that the senate and council deserve a clean voting environment. I recall several instances in the last game where the DP would call for a vote, and it would be hard to determine a vote count because of all the spurious chatter. I see the same thing sometimes happening in the poll threads.

I guess I lean towards a less than 100% implementation of "no citizen posting allowed". That is to say, it is frowned upon, and obvious spam gets deleted. But if a citizen feels it is important to speak up in the poll thread, he/she should be able to, although it maybe should be treated like "civil disobedience", i.e., there are consequences to be faced (warnings, etc.), depending on the reasons for posting.

If we cannot have a flexible system, then I would have to vote "no" to allowing citizen posts in those threads. We do still have discussion threads, and PMs as necessary.

 

[Phoenix]

I think that we could make it so that a citizen could be invited in if all the members of the discussion allow it.
Example - in a military conversation falcon, lecky, and myself (good english there ) are only considered to be citizens but know a lot about how to run a civ military (even if i do say so). So somebody could invite, say, falcon into the conversation to help out.

 

[Octavian X]

Does anyone think that a pm system for these normally open votes would work? This would make it much easier for people to post in these private votes.

It could be set up so the person running the senate or council vote, preferablly an unbiased mod or member of the judical office, would post a thread asking for votes pm'd to him/her. After the required votes are in, the next post of the thread would be the results of the vote, and who voted for what. This way, the citizenry know who voted for what, and still may ask questions of leaders on their vote in that thread. As an added bonus, there wouldn't be confused newbies posting votes.

Thoughts?

 

[neutral leader]

the official government polls must be kept clean from unnecessary clutter, interference, and personal abuse. the issues should be discussed, but in a seperate citizens forum, not the official voting thread

neutral leader is a good, responsible provincial governor

 

[Cyc]

I don't think the PM system is a good idea and I do support the idea of a clean voting environment in cabinet and senate votes. If I felt as strongly about an issue as Donsig did (enough to post), then I would be willing to take the PI and/or punishment for the action.