Amendment: Integration of Minister of Economy - Page 2

Timeline · July 23, 2002, 08:36

Great! The first issue for the court to hammer out!

Imo abstain votes should not effect the outcome. They are not counted as votes, even though our automatic system DOES count them as votes and adds them into the percentage.

They don't count. If people wanted their vote to count for something they should've picked one of the option I say.

I hereby ask our new court to look into this matter.

Epistax · July 23, 2002, 08:38

uhg

Timeline · July 23, 2002, 10:08

To prove my point, here is an extreme example of how counting abstain votes could hurt polls.

In this example, the winning option requires a "simple majority" to win:

Yes: 4
No: 2
Abstain: 3
9 Votes total

Now, who won here? Looks like option Yes did, correct? Not if you count the abstains!

Here are the numbers our polling system would give:

Yes: 4 (44%)
No: 2 (22%)
Abstain: 3 (33%)

According to this, option Yes did *not* get a majority (50% or more).

We, however, are intelligent humans, and are capable of obtaining accurate results

. The polling system is not set up to register "abstain" options, it just assumes you won't vote if you want to abstain!

mtgillespie · July 23, 2002, 10:31

At the moment, either abstain votes will count either as a no, or will not affect the vote at all (I believe there will be debate on this, as it is not sepcified one way or the other). In either case, what are they there for?

I've been thinking about this for a little while, and wonder if we should have an amendment, whereby a certain percentage of abstain votes allows/requires a re-poll, with a modified proposal, but no three week waiting period is required. This allows for ammendments which are correct in theory but badly worded, or have a small part which needs to be removed, without having to wait before being changed. It also means that and abstain vote has a significant effect, without being a yes or no, and can be used if people feel a poll has been posted without sufficient debate.

Spiffor · July 23, 2002, 10:37

I support the amendment, but I think it didn't pass. Indeed, the choice is to change the constitution, or to favor the status quo. Abstain votes are obviously in favor of the status quo, so they should count as no.

Timeline · July 23, 2002, 10:47

Abstain votes are generally a replacement for not voting at all.

They are there so that click happy freaks (

), who dont want to change the outcome of the vote, don't have to. Also, abstains encourage ALL citizens to vote, even ones who do not want to effect a decision, maybe because they feel they are to ignorant, or they don't care.

Abstains are neutral votes, exactly in the middle, and cancel each other out. They are not, nor have ever been, used to change the outcome in any vote I have ever seen.

Edit: Think about it, if I had not put in an abstain vote, those two would not have voted. What would the outcome be then?

The same applies here.

mtgillespie · July 23, 2002, 11:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I support the amendment, but I think it didn't pass. Indeed, the choice is to change the constitution, or to favor the status quo. Abstain votes are obviously in favor of the status quo, so they should count as no.

They are distinct from a no, and should not count. People who want to vote no have that option. However, i feel at the moment they are a waste of time, but could be made to be useful.

Ninot · July 23, 2002, 11:10

i see no reason WHY you put abstain as an option if you are going to disregard the abstains in any case.

Timeline · July 23, 2002, 11:12

I just stated "WHY" they were placed in the poll.

I am not disregarding them. Anyone who thinks they should effect the outcome of a poll is disregarding their purpose.

mtgillespie · July 23, 2002, 11:13

Because people complain if you don't. By the same logic, why would you vote "abstain" if you really meant no? Therefore you can't count them as a no.

Edit: this was in response to Ninot

GodKing · July 23, 2002, 12:39

OK - I abstained. Just switch my vote to yes and let this one pass. Then we can have the court relook into this.

If I remember Robert's Rules of Order correctly, an abstain is a method for a person to vote, without effecting the outcome either way. This is usually necessary when a plurality (a sertain minimum number of votes) is necessary for the proposal to be passed.

With that being the case, Timeline is correct. Abstians should not count toward the percentages of an amendment passing. Of course, with only 29 people voting either way, perhaps we should have an ammendment stating that we need a minimum number of votes.....

Timeline · July 23, 2002, 12:43

Quote:

Originally posted by GodKing
OK - I abstained. Just switch my vote to yes and let this one pass. Then we can have the court relook into this.

I wish you could, but I don't think it would go over well since the poll is closed.

*Crosses Fingers*

Hopefully our panel of judges will display an uncommon amount of common sense in this issue.

Timeline · July 23, 2002, 15:45

I would also like to point out that this amendment was already passed once here, and that the results were never declared invalid by myself or any other official.

This re-poll is out of respect for one individual, who felt the last poll was to confusing.

Kramerman · July 23, 2002, 17:44

I've been out of the loop on this one too. Good luck fellas...

Epistax · July 23, 2002, 17:51

Earlier I was in a mindstate, where I could honestly say that abstaining counted as a no, but it was needed equally as much as yea or nay. After reading this over, I can't figure out how to get back into that mindstate to explain my position.

This is a tough one, it's easy to see the side that says abstaining means nothing. I think this has to do with the fact that our main voting body is flexible. Thinking about the court on the otherhand, there are vote voters, so abstaining means something. With the flexible voters, the more people that happen to say they don't care, lowers the yea's.

I think I've convinced myself against me.

--- I suggest repolling with yes/no only, and explain the reasoning (without suggesting how to vote) in the first post.

Aggie · July 23, 2002, 20:02

In my opinion this could be called an invalid poll.
Here's why. From the constitution.
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.

Well a yes/no grouping is not a "yes/no/abstain grouping". So if the poll is invalid you could repoll it. Without the abstains it might pass.

Perhaps this is why we said yes/no grouping. To avoid the very discussion of whether or not the abstains counts.(For the record we should have abstains in impeachment votes,but that is for a different reason )
Aggie

Timeline · July 23, 2002, 22:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Epistax
--- I suggest repolling with yes/no only, and explain the reasoning (without suggesting how to vote) in the first post.

AHHH!!!!

OH...........MY.....GAWD.

NOT ANOTHER FREAKIN' TIME

I am not repolling this again unless the court so orders me.

Epistax, you admitted yourself it's a clear issue. When you need to convince yourself something is right, when your mind is telling you it's wrong, then you already have your answer.

<-Mind: Abstains DONT COUNT

<-Heart: ooooo, yes sir, they do, they do

<-Heart and Mind: They dont count as votes, but they are figured into the percentage

<-Reason: Abstains don't count as a vote, and they don't effect the outcome of a poll

This is not a tough case, it's simple.

Epistax · July 23, 2002, 22:16

Timeline, the amendment did not pass as polled. Yea did not get 2/3's needed... If someone brought this to the court, it might be rulable to disallow the the abstains.

arg convene an emergency counsel of the not yet court? heheh

Timeline · July 23, 2002, 22:19

Are you making fun of me?

I have already asked the court to look into this when it is up and running.

Kramerman · July 23, 2002, 22:35

Damn! The court has been in exsistance now for what... 12 hours? And it already has an issue! This is going to be quite thrilling, to see if the system we created in the Judicial amendment actually works efficiently.

Captain · July 23, 2002, 23:01

Well, it'll be a few days yet before the Judges are confirmed. I suggest the nominees (who are all majority approved at this time) start looking into this issue already and familiarize themselves with this thread and the previous poll - as well as looking over the Polling section of the COL.

However, I would strongly encourage clearing up the Polling standards as given in the COL. They are vague and I am under no illusion that the Court will readily reach agreement. It may be wise to begin the discussion on the issue of ABSTAINING in polls. Does it count as no or neutral or yes? Then set up a poll without the ABSTAIN option in it. This might actually be faster than getting a Court ruling. But then, is the Court allowed to retroactively apply a NEW law to an issue that happened before such a law existed? I doubt it.

In any case, what might help is to ask people why they abstain. Looking at the posts (including other threads) it seems they don't wan their vote to swing the decision either way (neutral) but just want to indicate they are aware of the issue and would like to vote but aren't sure. Or they don't care (neutral). I am not sure why abstain should be considered in favour of the status quo. They aren't in favour of either.

Another reason might be to abstain when you think the poll is invalid. Abstain is a way to "vote without voting". It is a sort of "protest vote". Sufficient numbers of abstains indicate displeasure/protest against the options given. I'm not sure that's the way it's being used on these forums though.

In any case, it would help the Court a lot if the polling standards were clarified (even though it might mean another amendment, that might be preferable to the Court setting a precedent for whatever they decide).

Aggie · July 23, 2002, 23:37

I still think a real case can be made that a yes/no grouping doesn't allow an abstain option. Thus this poll is invalid in my opinion. One thing captain, since you are now effectively a judge, you might be careful about commenting in a thread like this. Personally I have no problem with it, however there might be those who will say a judge had already made up his mind. Another danger is if you made a comment and a person in the hearing used it as evidence. Of course all people can speak as citizens and the reason the judges were selected was for their openmindedness. Now an announcement, I intend to challenge this poll as invalid due to the term abstain in a poll that should only contain yes/no. My main reason for doing this is to solve the abstain arguement and to bring an issue before the court, so the court can design and put into practice procedures for such things as hearings and/or trials. This way the court can "practice" on an issue that isn't too important and earth shattering, yet does have relevance. Also how the procedures work for this could help us troubleshoot impeachment hearings etc.
Aggie

UnOrthOdOx · July 23, 2002, 23:44

Personally, I am confused here as well. We have a poll that asked whether we could even reword the constitution that ended in a tie, this one is unclear on which resuts to use, and a new 'official' structuring of the CoL that is asking the same basic thing.

Personally, I say that if the structring of the CoL wins it's poll, it could be used to RETROACTIVELY reword the MoE ammendment into the CoL, therefore avoiding more of this tedium. Why make a new ammendment that means the same thing as one that already passed? We need to get back to the GAME!!! Too much time is being spent on the CoL and Government.

Epistax · July 23, 2002, 23:55

coming from someone sitting behind a desk..

Agreed none the less

Aggie · July 23, 2002, 23:56

I also want to have more play UnOrthOdOx, which is why I called for ninot to set up a turnthread for thurs. Still no reply I guess ninot has rl to worry about. But since we have nothing do until then, we are entertaining ourselves. Also this gives us a chance to work out some kinks before the game really gets going. Personally I want us to do as the military advisor in civ2 said "lets go bonk some heads". I do miss those advisors. Maybe everybody in this group who has a similar minister position should take the avatars from that game.
Aggie

Captain · July 23, 2002, 23:59

All comments posted by me are those of a private citizen and are in no way, shape or form representative of a Justice of the Court.

Should I be approved and become a Justice, the above statement will still apply. Judicial opinions will be clearly stated as such and posted in Judicial threads. All other opinions should be considered that of a private citizen.

However, if I am sitting on a current case, I will not offer my personal opinion on the subject/issues involved as that would be unprofessional. Actually, extend that. If there is any open case, even if not sitting on it myself, I will not comment on it except in a professional judicial manner.

Otherwise, I believe I can still participate as a citizen in the rest of the game. If you disagree, let me know. Or reject me. Being a Justice is an honour, but I won't fight tooth and nail for it.

Aggie · July 24, 2002, 00:23

No offense was intended captain. and in no way was I challenging your honesty. I reread my earlier post and saw how it could be misinterpreted. Perhaps all court members should put your initial statement in their signature. I was justing giving a heads up to every judge(present and future). I just don't want a judge to accidentally say something that could be misconstrewed and lead to problems. For example if a judge said "I hope somebody brings this before us" this could be seen as a judge trying to get a citizen to bring a case before the court, and thus effectively the judge would be bringing the issue before the court. This is illegal. This could be seen as a impeachable offense. Though I think a reprimand would be a better solution(of course this depends on the case).
Regards
Aggie

Captain · July 24, 2002, 22:59

No worries Aggie, I do appreciate the heads up. Considering this issue may be before the Court soon, I'll keep my big mouth shut on it.

Aggie, you have had nothing but good advice in all the judicial threads and the rest of the C3DG stuff too. I hope you continue to keep giving that good advice. The Court will be making the final rulings but I see no reason why we can't get "expert" opinions from such excellent folks such as yourself and Togas.

I won't comment on whether or not this should be a Court matter, but I do think the Court should have practice. We are tyring to set up communications and timezone problems, so the first case will likely be a bit bumpy as we sort out how we're going to communicate privately and publicly. (assuming "we" includes me being approved).

Ninot · July 24, 2002, 23:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
I also want to have more play UnOrthOdOx, which is why I called for ninot to set up a turnthread for thurs. Still no reply I guess ninot has rl to worry about. But since we have nothing do until then, we are entertaining ourselves. Also this gives us a chance to work out some kinks before the game really gets going. Personally I want us to do as the military advisor in civ2 said "lets go bonk some heads". I do miss those advisors. Maybe everybody in this group who has a similar minister position should take the avatars from that game.
Aggie

while this is a great chance to get kinks out, i agree, we need some turns, and soon

im seeing how easy it will be to have turns played tommorow. I dont know what kinda difficulties will arise tho, cuz this would be really short notice.

Timeline · July 24, 2002, 23:20

I already stated twice earier in this thread that this WILL be an issue taken before the court, probably their first ever case.

So start cracking.