Who should declare polls invalid?

[fed1943]

It was already decided that it is a person or commitee.
It's the first step, but still not enough.
(First, I want to say why I go on with the question. I believe "invalid polls"
is an important subject that can cause a lot of damage. And it is not even
necessary bad faith from the poster to have such a poll. Invalidity can come
from any mix - a repeated affirmation together with the query, possible answer
left behind, the same option totally or partially repeated and so on).
As I'm a poor English speaker, I have to give you a clear example:
The important poll that decided DP Pool had as options: DP Pool, President,
Chain of Command. As President belongs to Chain of Command there is a clear
biased query (again,do not confuse it with bad faith,please) that helps the
independent option; could happen and did happen.
So, it is an important question and someone must be ready to take care.

As long as I can see, the possible options are:
a) One Justice (possibly the Court's President);
b) The Judiciary;
c) One elected Officer to this task;
d) A group of # elected Officers to this task.

Is there any other possible option I do not see?
So, I would like this matter to be commented and someone (who speaks
English) to poll it.

Best regards,

 

[dutchfire]

I would personally say: The mods
But I know that a lot of people who have more experience and knowledge about this subject don't like this idea.

 

[Hyronymus]

I would vote for the Judiciary. I expect a more balanced an more thoughtful ruling from them then from mods. Not because mods are inconsiderate but the Judiciary is part of the on-going game, just like the citizens that report an invalid poll.

 

[Methos]

I would vote for the Judiciary.

I agree. I think all three members of the Judiciary must agree that a poll is invalid in order to make it invalid. Nothing is needed done to make a poll valid, as it is automatically considered valid when created.

I expect a more balanced an more thoughtful ruling from them then from mods. Not because mods are inconsiderate but the Judiciary is part of the on-going game, just like the citizens that report an invalid poll.

I don't like the mods being the ones who do it due to them already being busy with moderator duties. Besides, wouldn't it take some of the fun away from them if they had to include "work" in order to play their game?

 

[dutchfire]

I agree. I think all three members of the Judiciary must agree that a poll is invalid in order to make it invalid. Nothing is needed done to make a poll valid, as it is automatically considered valid when created.

What if it was a poll made by one of the justices?

 

[Methos]

What if it was a poll made by one of the justices?

Seriously though, it's covered by our Constitution (or one of those legal docs). They would have to recuse themselves from that decision and another (possibly the Chieftain) would take their place.

 

[DaveShack]

An individual elected citizen, no restrictions on who it can be.

A committe with an odd number of members, a majority deciding.

 

[donsig]

I would personally say: The mods
But I know that a lot of people who have more experience and knowledge about this subject don't like this idea.

Mods should only meddle in democracy game affairs forum rules are blatantly broken. If at all possible we should be able to use our DG rules to fix problems.

I see nothing wrong with letting the judicary be the arbitrator of bad polls, I may not agree with whatever procedures they come up with but if that's the case I can always try to pass an initiative. I love this system.

 

[Octavian X]

I'm all for letting the judiciary handle invalidation, because it already exists as a body dedicated to interpreting the law. And, if the rest of the game proves as legally quiet as this term has been so far, the Bench will need something to do anyway.

I'm not ruling out, though, appointing/electing someone to act like the Censor of the last game. One person usually acts faster than a body of three. To prevent abuse, of course, we'd have to set up an appeals system, though which said Censor's decisions could be appealed to the judiciary and (if need be, as a last resort) to the people.

 

[fed1943]

I am for the Judiciary.

The question here is to interpret the law, so Judiciary is the body to do it.

Best regards,

 

[donsig]

One person usually acts faster than a body of three. To prevent abuse, of course, we'd have to set up an appeals system, though which said Censor's decisions could be appealed to the judiciary and (if need be, as a last resort) to the people.

We could allow the individual justices to invalidate polls. The first appeal could be to the full judiciary (in other words, if a justice invalidates a poll, the other two could uninvalidate it.) Final appeal with the people sounds good though we'd need a procedure.

 

[grant2004]

I like donsig's idea that a single justice would be able to invalidate it with an appeal to the full judiciary. It seems that would get things done faster, but would give a balance on the power of that single judge.

 

[DaveShack]

And it could be any of the justices, which is good.

A next logical step might be to allow anyone to say the poll is invalid, with the full judiciary uninvalidating.

 

[Hyronymus]

And it could be any of the justices, which is good.

A next logical step might be to allow anyone to say the poll is invalid, with the full judiciary uninvalidating.

I don't understand why everyone is making this so extremely difficult . If you allow anyone to ask the Judiciary to investigate and determin poll validity you don't need anything else.

 

[fed1943]

I agree with Hyronymus, anyone can call Judiciary attention and Judiciary

shall decide.

Best regards,

 

[Methos]

A next logical step might be to allow anyone to say the poll is invalid, with the full judiciary uninvalidating.

I disagree with allowing anyone, as someone who doesn't even play DG II could legally say its invalid. If your idea was used I would call that the player has to be a registered DG II citizen. This can easily be checked by any citizen by simply checking a players profile and looking at their Group Memberships.

All this would do is keep non-DG II players from legally stalling the game.

 

[donsig]

I'd also say we should not (at least for now) allow anyone to invalidate a poll. Let's try walking before we try running. Let's give the individual judiciary members the authority for now. If or when we ever get to the point of allowing anyone to invalidate a poll we should modify anyone to be a member of the DG user group as Methos has pointed out.

 

[Methos]

If or when we ever get to the point of allowing anyone to invalidate a poll we should modify anyone to be a member of the DG user group as Methos has pointed out.

Realize that I do not agree with that method, but I was merely pointing out a way to make Dave's option more viable. I can see allowing any registered group citizen calling for the judiciaries to examine the poll, but believe it should only be the unanimous vote of the judiciaries to declare it invalid.

 

[grant2004]

I see too much potential for abuse with the poll invalidation by any member, the idea of any judge being allowed to do it works though. We've seen that there are a lot of complaints that can be made with even a decently fair poll, I'm sure most polls would be invalidated by some nit picker if any citizen could invalidate.

 

[ravensfire]

Time to get this moving again ...

Proposal:

Poll Invalidation Act of XXXXBC (date TBD at time of poll posting)

Section 1 - Invalidation
Any member of the Judiciary may declare a poll to be invalid at any time prior to the poll closing, or 72 hours after the poll has opened, which ever is later. Any citizen objecting to this declaration may appeal the invalidation to the full Judiciary. This appeal must be made within 24 hours of the invalidation.

Section 2 - Appeal
The Judiciary will conduct all appeals in a timely manner as specified in the procedures created by the Chief Justice

--------------------
NOTES:
-- Time frames are suggestions at this point, but we'll need them in there.
-- The time frames are somewhat short as we should only have invalidations (or the threat thereof) on truly bad polls.
-- What's still needed are the guidelines for polls. There's tribal knowledge of what is a valid vs invalid poll, but that's not enough. Time to revive the poll standards act?

-- Ravensfire