Official Polling Standards

[Jon Shafer]

I call for a vote upon an official addition to our Constitution regarding polls.

Question:
Do you think that my proposal is an acceptable addition to help prevent problems regarding polling?

Options:
Yes, No

Expiration:
5 Days

Description:
These are very basic rules to make things fairer for both sides. This is not a radical proposal that is trying to conform everything and everyone to a strict set of rules, but merely an attempt to gain some sort of fairness. I believe that in order for polls to be more useful to us, we have to have rules that must be abided by for the sake of fairness and simplicity. Lately, there have been many incidents of people disagreeing over poll results, and something must be done. More often than not, it's been a race to see which side can get a poll up for an issue and slash the other side's view to promote its own in the first post and in the question/answers. The way things are really isn’t fair, and should be changed. This is the purpose of this poll. I propose the following as an official addition to our proposed Constitution:

Introduction:
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.

General Rules:
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.

Length of a Poll
Each poll must be open for a minimum of 3 days. This allows enough time for the majority of our members to see the poll and vote in it. Any poll open or taking results in less than 3 days is invalid. This includes 'spur of the moment' polls, that say something like 'This poll ends when turn 5 starts', but turn 5 starts in 2 days instead of 3 - this poll would be invalid.

Fairness and Neutrality:
The first post in a poll thread should be completely neutral. No options are to be suggested for voting, just what each option entails in an unbiased format. The same is true for the voting options. While poking fun at an option will probably be acceptable, if someone thinks that it interferes with a voter’s decision, then they may deem it invalid. If you show bias in your options, then it is no longer fair. So be warned, if your poll is a landslide one way and should win but someone feels that the options you presented are unfair and calls for a validity vote, if it’s deemed invalid your poll is useless.

Poll Format:
Each official poll MUST include either a ‘yes/no’ format, or a ‘group’ format, where similar options are grouped together, where the winning option within the group with the most votes is the official winner. The only time these formats do not have to be followed is in true multiple-choice polls, i.e. ‘Which Civilization should we be: Egyptians, Persians. Etc.’ In these cases, a simple ‘yes/no’ or ‘grouping’ poll does not suffice.

Repolling:
If someone wants to conduct a repoll, then it must be created at least 3 weeks following the initial poll. If a repoll is created before 3 weeks has passed, then that poll is immediately invalid. If a poll is an alternative poll, offering alternatives to decisions made in a previous poll, then it also must be conducted at least 3 weeks following the first poll, or be immediately deemed invalid. Any poll that's general purpose is the same or similar as another poll will be considered a repoll.

Length of Validity:
Poll results are valid until either a repoll is conducted, or an optional expiration on the results of the poll is included (either from an event or a time limit). In any other case, the results of a poll are official until the end of the game.

Invalidity of a Poll:
If these rules are not abided by, anyone may consider the poll invalid. If someone believes a poll to not be following these rules and declares it invalid, then a vote may be conducted among the elected officials listed in the ‘Current Administration’ thread to be either ‘valid’ or ‘invalid’. If the poll is deemed invalid, then its results cannot be used for any official purposes regarding the game. A poll deemed invalid cannot be voted on again unless it abides by the rules regarding a repoll.

[EDIT]A couple spelling and grammar corrections.[/EDIT]
[EDIT2]Added section about length of time that an official poll must be open for.[/EDIT2]

[Jon Shafer]

Here you can see a demonstration of what I propose. As I said there, that is not the strict, 'this-is-how-it-should-be' construction, but it does include a concise question, the options, and the expiration without bias towards any option.

[punkbass2000]

Commendable effort to make polls unbiased. This proposal has my full support. I am beginning to regret voting for the banana

[punkbass2000]

You know, come to think of it, the initial polls probably should have been on polling procedures as opposed to gameplay decisions.

[Jon Shafer]

Ah well, everything has a rough, bumpy start, I'm just trying to smooth things out a bit now for us.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Head... spinning.

I commend the effort, Trip, but fear the red tape we are wrapping ourselves into.

I still maintain that a majority in a poll is the chosen decision. Groups just puzzle me - I know what you mean but am unable to see why a simple majority rules ideacannot work.

I am not trying to threadjack - surely this poll is for ppl to vote, and say why they voted for that option. If not please correct me, and direct me to the correct place to voice my opinion. I vote No, because I think this is too complex to begin with.

[Jon Shafer]

Another thing people. If you disagree with one option (i.e. one thing or another is too strict), then it can easily be amended later on, without having to resubmit a standard for polling every so often to try and get an entire document ratified. I'm open for suggestions and corrections, but please vote 'yes' first if you agree with most of what I say, and then things you disagree with can be changed later, when it's easier to do so.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I still maintain that a majority in a poll is the chosen decision. Groups just puzzle me - I know what you mean but am unable to see why a simple majority rules ideacannot work.

It is a majority vote though, it just simplifies the process and allows for many fewer polls. For example, on turn limits, without grouping, I would have to hold 2 polls. One that asked 'should we have limited or unlimited terms?', and then if limited won, then another 'how many terms should an official be limited to?' As you can see, it reduces the number of polls and the amount of time needed to conduct them, while still allowing for majority rule.

[Apocalypse]

It makes good sense. I like it.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Trip

It is a majority vote though, it just simplifies the process and allows for many fewer polls. For example, on turn limits, without grouping, I would have to hold 2 polls. One that asked 'should we have limited or unlimited terms?', and then if limited won, then another 'how many terms should an official be limited to?' As you can see, it reduces the number of polls and the amount of time needed to conduct them, while still allowing for majority rule.

Yes, I do take your point, but I would still say that poll would have an option for infinite, and other options for the various numbers 1, 2, 3 turns etc. Or, you could have one multi-option poll. Vote for either infinite or limited, and also vote for a number. That way, if limited wins, you have a number that a majority of ALL voters preferred. If infinite wins, then the numbers are unimportant.

[Jon Shafer]

That can be used as a tool to gain a certain proposal or another though. For example, if you had every combinition of type of land and amount of water, then you would have quite a few options. Say you supported a random map, however. You could make a poll splitting up alllllll the options, and random. Say 40 people vote overall for each of the divided options, but no more than 20 for each. Say random gets 21. Clearly, more people want a specified map, but random had the most. It's a technique to get the options you want voted for, which isn't fair. That is why the ability to do that should cease.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I still maintain that a majority in a poll is the chosen decision. Groups just puzzle me - I know what you mean but am unable to see why a simple majority rules ideacannot work.

Because it's too easy to accidentally manipulate polls, otherwise. A good example would be deciding how old the planet should be with the options being 3 biliion, 4 billion, 5 billion and random. This poll is biased towards random because it is splitting the votes for not random between three options, giving random the edge. It should be "Do you want random? Yes/No", then, if yes, poll the three options.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
Because it's too easy to accidentally manipulate polls, otherwise. A good example would be deciding how old the planet should be with the options being 3 biliion, 4 billion, 5 billion and random. This poll is biased towards random because it is splitting the votes for not random between three options, giving random the edge. It should be "Do you want random? Yes/No", then, if yes, poll the three options.

Looks like I beat ya to it.
Good thing I learned to type good in 4th grade.

[punkbass2000]

Damn, I was too late

[punkbass2000]

Damn, I was too late saying I was too late

[Timeline]

Okay Trip, looks like the first positive step you have taken so far. Good post, although you should have posted a thread for debate about it before posting the poll

I too must eat my vote for the Banana

[notyoueither]

Since parties dominate the Executive, and members of the Executive are the ones conducting polls for the most part, you are proposing that the pollers judge their own polls. Good plan.

OTOH, polls started by members of the public at large are usually going to be due to vocal opposition to what the Executive are doing. Again, the Executive will be the judge of these polls. Great plan.

I reject this document as it stands.

[Jon Shafer]

I'm not judging anything. I'm setting down some rules and seeing if people agree that they should be enacted. Why do you disagree with them? Just because I made them? Hmmmm, that makes sense...

[notyoueither]

If these rules are not abided by, anyone may consider the poll invalid. If someone believes a poll to not be following these rules and declares it invalid, then a vote may be conducted among the elected officials listed in the ‘Current Administration’ thread to be either ‘valid’ or ‘invalid’. If the poll is deemed invalid, then its results cannot be used for any official purposes regarding the game. A poll deemed invalid cannot be voted on again unless it abides by the rules regarding a repoll.

What does that say Trip?

[Jon Shafer]

Then what do you suggest, if you're so clever?

[notyoueither]

Jettison the bit about the fox guarding the hen house.

No rule is better than that rule, although I have made some other suggestions.

[Jon Shafer]

If there's no way to enforce the invalidations of polls, then what? All these are just fancy words that I've thrown together that don't mean anything. 'If you do this, then we'll... uh... scold you! That's it!'

[Panag]

hi ,

Trip , maybe we should talk first about what Q's are in a poll , this way there are more options , ...

have a nice day

[notyoueither]

Trip. If you want to formalize the invalidation of polls, then a solution other than the Executive judging it's own polls is needed.

Suggesting there are no alternatives seems a bit silly to me.

[Jon Shafer]

I didn't say it was the only solution. If someone has a better idea, then I'm all for it. So far no one has suggested a better way AFAIK. Either that, or they don't think it's good enough to officially impliment, because I don't remember seeing a poll asking about it.

[Panag]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Trip. If you want to formalize the invalidation of polls, then a solution other than the Executive judging it's own polls is needed.

Suggesting there are no alternatives seems a bit silly to me.

hi ,

, good point , Trip , the senate could do the pole's , this way you just say , a ploe about this or that , and they would work out all the Q's , it would save some work on the president also , ...

have a nice day

[notyoueither]

I do not believe there has been any discussion of your plan for judging polls as valid or not Trip.

The absense of a rule would be better than a rule of tyranny.

[Switch]

great idea. To do something like this one definitely needs specifics and guidlines where ever possible, at least within reason.

[civman2000]

NO, too complicated, overorganization, too restrictive

Maybe i shrunkne form would work though...

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I do not believe there has been any discussion of your plan for judging polls as valid or not Trip.

The absense of a rule would be better than a rule of tyranny.

Well, more people are voting 'yes' than 'no' so I suppose that means something.

And why would a Senate be any better than the current ministers as far as judging? They'd be people just like the ministers, there's no difference.