An Amendment Discussion: Polls

[Epistax]

Article III: Polling currently reads

Polls may be conducted in an ‘unofficial’ format to simply gain information, but CANNOT be used in any official decisions. All of the following rules are regarding ‘official’ polls, which may or may not be used as official results for the actual game. Any unofficial polls must be labeled as so within the first post.

in the first paragraph. The bolded text is the part I find improper, and quite frankly silly. Unofficial polls need to label themselves as such in the first post? Then I'm sure we've many accidentally official polls. I suggest replacing that line with:

Any official polls must be labeled as such within the first post or thread subject.

There is a cleanup effort to be done, defining such terms as 'invalidating a poll', and which polls can be invalided. This is a start. It is my belief that this was written in haste, and not considered carefully.

Any suggestions? Should other parts of the reformatting take place in the same amendment?

Another issue is the ability of both the court and the ministry to invalidate a poll. It is my belief that invalidate means to make an official poll, unofficial, so you cannot invalidate an already unofficial poll. Also, giving both the ministry and court the ability to overrule a poll, which group overrides the other? (court)

Thoughts on this?

[UnOrthOdOx]

I'ld like to see and abstain option required on official polls, and an official interpretation on how that abstain is counted.

[Captain]

I' d like a quorum requirement for polls to pass. If it's 6 votes to 3 votes, that meets the 2/3 requirement for an amendment - but that's just silly to change something without the input of a sufficient number of citizens.

[DAVOUT]

I am not yet prepared to accept that polls are made not to be used in the game. If there are matters where the minister needs more freedom, give them, but dont ask the people what he wants for not doing it.

[Panag]

hi ,

this might seem funny , but we should make a good poll on how to poll , ones done we should put it in the constitution , ...

and we should keep this poll open longer , so we can have more people vote in it

have a nice day

[Epistax]

Polls can be used for many reasons not directly relating to the game. For instance, asking what times people can attend turnchats, or what timezones they live in.

Remember polls aren't law. Ministers may disobey public opinion (that's the entire concept of having elected officials). Are official polls law? Not according to the COL, yet.

I'd like some ACTUAL AMENDMENT suggestions instead of vague concepts.

All poll on how to do polls would be possible, but not needed. Worded opinions carry more meaning than numerical ones.


As for as an abstain option being manditory. I like the option of the poster to specify what abstain means. If abstain doesn't mean no, then I don't see why someone can't just reply 'abstain' to the poll. Then they could decide later if they choose to.

[Captain]

Epi:

Yes, let's change from it from having to label unofficial to having to label official.

I had a thread about this sort of thing way back during Trip's reign but there wasn't sufficient interest to propel it forward. I had the same suggestion. I also suggested that the rules only apply to official polls as they are the only ones that "count" (not really since they can eb ignored by ministers).

We've established by convention that 2/3 means 2/3 of votes cast (ignoring the abstain disucssion for now) rather than 2/3 of citizens able to vote.

But we still need a quorum. I suggest using the same method as CFC. The quorum will be 50% or 2/3 of the votes cast in the most recent Presidential election (or highest number of votes cast in a recent ministerial election). Alternatively, we can go with X% of active citizens as determined by # of active posters within the last week (7 days). I am sure that is not hard to determine if we can get some admin support from the g0dz. This will give us an accurate reflection of active citizens.

Regardless of the method, some quorum is necessary. Clearly, if we have less than 20 votes, results should not be binding. But how many do we need? is 30 enough? 35? that's about half of active citizens. or 40? 45?

a poll on how to do polls? first we'd have to discuss what the poll options would be! why am I even bothering to respond to that? I never know what panag is trying to say anyways.

[DAVOUT]

If official polls does not become law, it is not worth to discuss anything else about them. So I suggest to modify the COL where it says that official polls are not binding the ministers.

[GePap]

I think after every election, we can set a quorum number, and for any poll to be valid, it must have that many votes or more total, excluding abstains. I also don't see the need for abstain on most polls- if you abstain, don't vote on most issues.

I also want a way to have polls binding on ministers, having non-binding pols on in-game issues is worthless

[notyoueither]

Ministers who choose to ignore an official poll may very well find themselves the subject of an impeachment poll. That is binding.

However, maybe the minister had a very good reason for not following the poll. Maybe the poll said we should disband half our military units, and then our largest neighbour declares war right off in the turn chat. Or...

We must allow the people elected to play the game, not be zombies of polls. They in turn must treat the position and the will of the people with respect.

[Togas]

Poll Rule suggestions:

First, we only regulate "Official" Polls. Let everyone post their own unofficial polls as they will. Their results have no authority.

Any poll the violates the rules will be found "Unofficial"

All "Official" polls are binding, plain and simple. If you don't want your poll to be binding, don't make it "official."

Official polls should be done by ministers only. The only exception is votes on things like elections and ammendments. Votes are different from polls. I'd go into why but that's a very long discussion for another time.

Abstain should only mean that "I don't want to vote on this issue." People who abstain just want to see what the results are. You cannot see the results of the election unless you vote or click on abstain. We should keep the option in for quarum purposes.

Quarum should be used for any vote on candidates and ammendments. Captain's suggestions are fine, we just need one that is easy to impliment.

ANYHOW, if no one wants to redraft this thing I'll do it when I get a chance. I have to finish up a few things at work first.

--Togas

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by notyoueither

However, maybe the minister had a very good reason for not following the poll. Maybe the poll said we should disband half our military units, and then our largest neighbour declares war right off in the turn chat. Or...

We must allow the people elected to play the game, not be zombies of polls. They in turn must treat the position and the will of the people with respect.

This example illustrate a change in circumstances ; in such a case, the Minister choosing to desobey an order no longer appropriate, if sued, would not be condemn for wrong doing.
That does not imply that in all cases the Minister has to make a choice.

[Epistax]

Recognizing the minimum number of voters needed for it to be an official decision by the number of votes in the previous election divided by two (breath) might work, but in this case none of our polls would ever receive enough votes. Even the rocks voted in the presidential election.


I do not like the idea of officials being bound by polls. Too many sticky situations we could find ourselves in. We vote to do this in a few turns, then once we reach the time, it's an obviously bad choice, or maybe even impossible. Along with this, I don't believe only officials should be able to make official polls, as they are not binding.


Official polls should be recognized as the will of the public.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Epistax


I do not like the idea of officials being bound by polls. Too many sticky situations we could find ourselves in. We vote to do this in a few turns, then once we reach the time, it's an obviously bad choice, or maybe even impossible. Along with this, I don't believe only officials should be able to make official polls, as they are not binding.


Official polls should be recognized as the will of the public.

If it is impossible to execute the order, where is the problem. As for sticky situations, they will be more easily avoided if the Minister knows that he must apply the poll.
In other words, I hate the idea of polls submited to the people, then not binding the ministers. If need be, enlarge the matters where the ministers have clear powers. A chart of powers with extensive definitions could be useful and avoid a lot of useless polls.

[Togas]

Regarding "Official Polls"

If they're not binding, then why call them "official"? All polls, official or otherwise, are done to represent the "will of the people." We do them to find out what people think about a particular subject. We also do them to ask the people to make an important decision that we intend to follow. We need to distinguish between the two goals.

If we don't want to make them binding, we should say so up front. If we want to make them binding, we should do that too.

For example:

UNOFFICIAL -- Who should be our next target?
OFFICIAL -- Should we declare War on France next turnchat?

I am against the idea of someone posting an "official" poll that says, "The SMC must do this on his next turn" or "we will not pop-rush" or the like. Therefore, I would make it so that the people posted only "unofficial" "will of the people" polls that tell our ministers what they want them to do, but are not binding. That way the people are heard, ministers aren't forced into doing something (as in the previous examples given by NYE and Davout). This is why official polls should only be done by officials only and done only regarding decisions that official needs to make.

Of course the exception is for elections and for ammendments to the law.

Let's come to grips with this official/unofficial thing or better yet, scrap both names and call our polls "binding" and "nonbinding."

--Togas

[notyoueither]

Right. So we've arrived at the fact that official polls may be disregarded if the situation warrants it, and the minister may not have to pay a price for that.

However, if you say that all official polls MUST be followed, then any time conditions in the game change the game will have to be halted, the minister will have to post a counter poll based on the new information, and the poll will have to run a minimum of 3 days. But wait, which poll takes precedence? The first poll with 70 voters and 65% yes, or the second with 40 voters and 57% no?

So that unexpected declaration of war, or that tech trade that didn't go as planned, or, or, or will all lead to delays of the game for 3 or 4 days minimum for each occurance. And then we can go to court to argue which one of the 2 polls should prevail. That will take another 4 to 7 days minimum. Do we want that?

We could proceed and state that official polls MUST be followed. In that case either the President or the VP (or both) may be up on charges as well if they should continue the game past a point that makes obeying an official poll impossible. Maybe we could find a situation where every single minister is indicted because they were all involved to some degree or other. Let's get everyone into court and fill the forum with impeachment polls.

I apologize if I am putting forth extreme, if not silly examples. However, I now have experienced the unique pleasure of trying to decide the meaning of complex, rushed and sometimes contradictory entries in our CoL.

I urge simplicity and avoiding locks that give people who are charged with a responsibility no choices.

Binding? How exactly binding? On who? Could we state that failure to follow an official poll is an act which could lead to impeachment for the minister making the decision to go against the poll? I think that implies that a minister had better do what the people expressed as their will. It also allows him or her the flexibility to keep the game going when strange things happen. Finally, it defines who is responsible and who would be held accountable. I believe everyone would be happy.

[DAVOUT]

If binding polls are submitted by the gov., can we imagine that, knowing the ministers will be binded, he thinks twice before posting ?

Any official poll reduces practically the powers of the ministrers, since there is no limitation in the Col. If you dont accept the binding, you must refuse as well the polls.

It seems that you want a blank check, duly signed.

I prefer no polls at all, except gallups to make believe the people that his opinion is worth something.

[Togas]

I also prefer that very few polls be binding and that, when posting "binding" polls, the poster (minister) recognize that he is going to have to abide by the decision.

Binding polls should be for major decisions that we, as a people, need to make. They should not be for policy or direction or advise. Those are what the unofficial or "gallup" polls are for.

--Togas

[Epistax]

Well then, perhaps a minister can post a binding poll, but no one else can, however it's very probable for a minister to go with any given official poll. That's what an official poll is.

An unofficial poll is either bias or vague (who should we attack next), or for some other reason does not want to dictate future actions (risky). An official poll is an unbiased opinion of what we need to do next. That is a huge difference.

Notice the poll on declaring war does not ask if we should, it's asking the public to give the ministers permission to declare war. That makes it so ministers are under no penalty if they decide not to. If it asked if we should, and we didn't during the next turnchat, an explanation would be warranted, but there would be nothing binding the official to follow.

Giving official polls absolute authority could rob a minister of his entire job (especially a position like the minister of science).


Hmm so what do you think? Perhaps polls by ministers are binding under penalty of people yelling their heads off?

[DAVOUT]

OK, I understand that you will find as many outstreched examples as necessary for discouraging any attempt yo make the polls binding. So I suggest that we no longer use the word Poll, you have played enough with it, and we replace it by People Authorization (to be used as required) and People Order (to do something - binding). For balance of power, the People Order can be posted by anybody.

[Spiffor]

Anybody should be able to post an official / binding poll. To be deemed official, a poll has to follow the rules of officiality.

For example, citizen #176 feels he has a great idea, but the adapted minister won't listen, for various reasons. Since he feels the idea is great, he posts an official poll (thus he cares about neutrality of the poll), and uses the results to bind the minister, if his suggestion wins.

Gepap says such a system will bring abuses, but I don't think so : currently, anyone can post official polls, but very few actually do. I think I'm the only one to have posted official polls on policy fields I'm not working on (for example, I've set up the official Plan Gold poll, because nobody else did so, including UberKrux).

Only the most active citizens will post official polls about our policy. Some polls won't deserve to be official, and that's exactly for this reason we have a court. If a poll is deemed unofficial by the court, it's not binding anymore. As simple as that.

We already have the 3-weeks delay to counteract spam. What we need is a small amendment about official polls, which says they must be precise. I mean, we can't call a "do you feel we need changes ?" poll official. To be binding, a poll must suggest a precise policy, a precise amendment, a precise law. Polls on the feeling of the population should be deemed unofficial.

A suggestion I'd make (please corretc my English) is :

An official poll must revolve on precise laws, amendments or policies.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Anybody should be able to post an official / binding poll. To be deemed official, a poll has to follow the rules of officiality.

For example, citizen #176 feels he has a great idea, but the adapted minister won't listen, for various reasons. Since he feels the idea is great, he posts an official poll (thus he cares about neutrality of the poll), and uses the results to bind the minister, if his suggestion wins.

Gepap says such a system will bring abuses, but I don't think so : currently, anyone can post official polls, but very few actually do. I think I'm the only one to have posted official polls on policy fields I'm not working on (for example, I've set up the official Plan Gold poll, because nobody else did so, including UberKrux).

Only the most active citizens will post official polls about our policy. Some polls won't deserve to be official, and that's exactly for this reason we have a court. If a poll is deemed unofficial by the court, it's not binding anymore. As simple as that.

We already have the 3-weeks delay to counteract spam. What we need is a small amendment about official polls, which says they must be precise. I mean, we can't call a "do you feel we need changes ?" poll official. To be binding, a poll must suggest a precise policy, a precise amendment, a precise law. Polls on the feeling of the population should be deemed unofficial.

A suggestion I'd make (please corretc my English) is :

hi ,

, sounds great , and maybe the "court" could rule what and how , and we should clear this up ones and for all true the constitution , ...

have a nice day

[carpathia]

Have you people forgotten that this is a democracy. You can not try to take our freedom of speach and put limitations on it. If a citizens would like to speak that is one of there god given rights. Allthough what i they may say may not want to be heard, they still have the right to get there point across.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Dammit, the Judiciary is there to deliberate on matters involving current laws and to make judgements on issues NOT covered in the Constitution.

As for a quorum for a poll to be valid, we can't just set this every election as things change quickly. I am in favour of having the judiciary decide when a poll has had enough votes to be considered to include a large enough number of active citizens. I believe the posters who are the judges are online enough to determine how many posters we can expect to vote in a poll at a given time, whereas if we write it down every month, or even two weeks, that brings up the possibility of stupid Court cases when it may be clear the number is out of date. Even a quick revision of the quorum number would take a few days to be considered valid.

Let the Judges decide - that was the idea after all. Once a case is decided, they then also decide whether we should include an official ruling in the Laws to prevent further Cases involving the same problems.

[notyoueither]

If we make quorum dependent on a mathematical formula based on the previous presidential election...

Then there isn't a lot to decide on. Math is math.

The only grey area I can foresee is if a poll falls during an election. In that case, it might be good to specifically state whether the election of the presidential term at the start or the finish of the poll is the standard. Or leave it to 5 wise people to decide.

[Spiffor]

Here's the current paragraph about polls (I only post the "general settings") :

General Rules:
Polls may be conducted in an ‘unofficial’ format to simply gain information, but CANNOT be used in any official decisions. All of the following rules are regarding ‘official’ polls, which may or may not be used as official results for the actual game. Any unofficial polls must be labeled as so within the first post.

Each official poll should have its rules laid out, as well as a form of expiration, either when a certain event takes place (i.e. ‘when the game starts’), or a time limit (i.e. ‘5 days’). This is to prevent the occurrence of an incident such as if doesn’t include an expiration, and says 3 weeks later "well this poll said this" kind of thing, and use its results officially. Each poll should lay out the potential options, as well as the question in a clear format. The required inclusions for the post are: an expiration date/event, a fair, clear and concise, unbaised question which addressed the issue of the poll, and a general description of what your poll entails. Instead of a description if you wish to post a link to another thread to give a description, that is acceptable as well.

Those who wish to put up a poll are strongly recommended to first discuss the issue in another thread, and bounce around possible options for voting. If someone feels that a poll could have been better made as a 'grouping' poll, or a 'yes/no' poll, then it may be deemed invalid.

Now, some suggestions to make official polls binding :

General Rules:
Polls may be conducted in an ‘unofficial’ format to simply gain information, but CANNOT don't have to be used in any official decisions. All of the following rules are regarding ‘official’ polls, which may or may not must be used as official results for the actual game. Any unofficial polls must be labeled as so within the first post. Any citizen can post official polls

Each official poll should have its rules laid out, as well as a form of expiration, either when a certain event takes place (i.e. ‘when the game starts’), or a time limit (i.e. ‘5 days’). This is to prevent the occurrence of an incident such as if doesn’t include an expiration, and says 3 weeks later "well this poll said this" kind of thing, and use its results officially. Each poll should lay out the potential options, as well as the question in a clear format. The first post of a poll requires the following inclusions : required inclusions for the post are: an expiration date/event, a fair, clear and concise, unbaised question which addressed the issue of the poll, and a general precise description of what your poll entails. Instead of a description if you wish to post a link to another thread to give a description, that is acceptable as well.

Those who wish to put up a poll are strongly recommended to must first discuss the issue in another thread, and bounce around possible options for voting. If someone feels that a poll could have been better made as a 'grouping' poll, or a 'yes/no' poll, then it may be deemed invalid by the Apolytonian court.

OK, now, a more readable thing, after all my corrections :

General Rules:
Polls may be conducted in an ‘unofficial’ format to simply gain information, but don't have to be used in any official decisions. All of the following rules are regarding ‘official’ polls, which must be used as official results for the actual game. Any official poll must be labeled as so within the first post. Any citizen can post official polls

The first post of a poll requires the following inclusions : an expiration date/event, a fair, clear and concise, unbaised question which addressed the issue of the poll, and a precise description of what your poll entails. Instead of a description if you wish to post a link to another thread to give a description, that is acceptable as well.

Those who wish to put up a poll must first discuss the issue in another thread, and bounce around possible options for voting. If someone feels that a poll could have been better made as a 'grouping' poll, or a 'yes/no' poll, then it may be deemed invalid by the Apolytonian court.

[Panag]

Originally posted by notyoueither


If we make quorum dependent on a mathematical formula based on the previous presidential election...

Then there isn't a lot to decide on. Math is math.

The only grey area I can foresee is if a poll falls during an election. In that case, it might be good to specifically state whether the election of the presidential term at the start or the finish of the poll is the standard. Or leave it to 5 wise people to decide.

hi ,

indeed , it might be wise to let a couple people act like a court , not maybe all the way like a real one , but more like trafic control engineers who see that everything rolls smoothly , .....
for example , they could decide on the duration of a poll , they are the ones that post the poll , they should should point out the pro's and the con's , ....
have a nice day

[Kloreep]

Another thing that occured to me with this election is vote-by-post (or whatever you want to call them; absentee ballots, perhaps? ). Basically, I mean voting with a post rather than in the forum poll because you can't for some reason - ie, skywalker's "add +1 to this option manually; *sigh*". Another example would be someone's comment (I forget who) commenting that since they voted for skywalker in the PW election, they would cast a manual vote if it was a tie between the other two candidates.

Vote-by-post is not covered in the CoL, though the polling rules are worded in a way that they wouldn't necessarily be invalid votes; with the current wording, a poll conducted without the forum's polling system at all (in other words, totally vote-by-post) would be considered valid, as long as it obeyed all the rules.

Don't get me wrong; I have nothing against this. I just thought we should include a mention of vote-by-post, and any restrictions we may want to put on it, in the CoL.

[civman2000]

It should not be absolutely required to have discussion before polls. That would be too cumbersome for some situations.

[Panag]

Originally posted by civman2000
It should not be absolutely required to have discussion before polls. That would be too cumbersome for some situations.

hi ,

, no we should have discussions , so that we know what goes in the poll
and we can include this or that option

otherwise we get a form of banana nation , instead of a democrazy one

have a nice day