11-02-2004 12:00									#1
	Amendment Discussion - Official Polls Got spare money?

Myself and the other consuls think that it is wise if we begin discussing an amendment which lays out the requirements in order to post an "official" poll which must be abided by.

This would prevent ad hoc polls from being posted without proper discussion. One stipulation would require a certain number of days of discussion in a seperate thread in order to begin an official poll. Another might be limiting the number of times something can be polled.

	11-02-2004 12:02									#2
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Perhaps a good idea.

One question though. As it stands, only a member of the Senate may post a bill (official poll). We are all members of the Senate EXCEPT those who are serving as Consuls.

Would we keep that distinction?

	11-02-2004 12:05									#3
	Remove this text

I personally see no reason to have that restriction in place.

Maybe someone can enlighten me though.

	11-02-2004 12:13									#4
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, Consuls have a massive amount of power and influence as is. They basically make our day to day law by just doing things. Do they need more?

It is a seperation of powers thing. The executive have their power, the Senate has its. The only power the Senate has is the ability to propose and pass laws.

A better question would be, why do Consuls need to be able to propose laws when they already rule by fiat?

	11-02-2004 12:20									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Well, Consuls have a massive amount of power and influence as is. They basically make our day to day law by just doing things. Do they need more? It is a seperation of powers thing. The executive have their power, the Senate has its. The only power the Senate has is the ability to propose and pass laws. A better question would be, why do Consuls need to be able to propose laws when they already rule by fiat?

The reason is really pretty simple. Does anyone remember the absolutely rediculous lengths I had to go to as the FAM in the original SPDG right after the NewCon was passed just to get an official poll started asking for public opinion and approval on my alliance proposal with Rome, England, and Greece?

We passed an ammendment allowing ministers to actually just propose their own bills right after that.

That's why.

	11-02-2004 13:06									#6
	Got spare money?

Hmmm. Well, in this case ministers can propose their own bills, and in the absence of a bill you can do whatever in Hades you want... so long as the other Consuls agree.

Even if the Senate actually passes a bill, which is rare, the Consuls can go ahead and do as they see fit since we do not have a Court to stop them. They would simply have to survive the CoC fueled by their ignoring the Senate.

So, why do Consuls need to be able to propose bills?

	11-02-2004 13:09									#7
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

btw, am I the only one snickering at Arne's avatar as a part of this debate?

	11-02-2004 14:20									#8
	Full PM-box? Change here!

People should be able to post a poll when they feel like it. It's not like the team gets bogged down by too many polls. We actually need more action in here, not less.

	11-02-2004 21:15									#9
	Put an end to popups!

I will bring up the same argument I had the last time BF posted a gazillion official polls:

The consuls already have enough power. The senate should not lose any more power than they already have. However, I feel that a single person can abuse the poll system since he can post polls on ANYTHING even before relevant discussion has been made, and thus, unjustly influence the voting in those polls.

My proposal was to have official polls to require endorsement by, for example, 3 or 5 other senators. This will not impede important polls from being posted but will discourage a single senator from hogging the polls since he'll need support from more people.

That being said, anybody should have a right to post an opinion poll, but I feel that "official" polls should require more than just the whim of an individual. Plus, this would actually encourage more inter-senatorial colaboration as the person who wants to post the poll would likely have to talk or PM with other members to seek endorsement.

-MZ

	11-02-2004 21:34									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I don't like requiring endorsements by several senators. If one person wants to start a poll, let them start a poll.

I'd prefer the following two things, though:

1. Polls on major issues really should have a pre-poll discussion. Polling without one to get the knee-jerk reaction of the team before any discussion is not productive.

2. If an issue has just been polled and either passed/failed, there should be at least SOME sort of delay built in to prevent someone merely upset that they lost the first vote from just immediately re-polling the same issue. Perhaps this is related to #1... all polls should have a pre-poll discussion. If they want to re-poll an issue just polled, they have to start another pre-poll discussion on the subject first. Since we WANT people to re-poll issues for which the situation has actually CHANGED, this should still allow issues to be re-polled when important.

As for Consuls having the ability to post official polls, I strongly think they should have that ability. The reason is relatively simple and has to do with encouraging the Consuls to act in a similar manner to the way ministers in the EARLY SPDG (pre-constitution) behaved. Sure, they weren't REQUIRED to poll hardly anything, but they polled issues anyhow because in order to make this democracy game more democratic they solicited public opinion.

As things stand now, that's largely the system we have. There is long history of official polls in this forum started by Consuls or ministers governing their own areas of authority. This is a responsible thing which we WANT Consuls to do... start a poll asking the populace to decide an issue they might otherwise just decide on their own.

Whether it's naming cities or deciding what to offer CFC in the alliance negotiations or any other issue, sure the Consuls COULD just decide it privately off by themselves... but we WANT to encourage them to poll th electorate in many of these cases instead. Telling them they shouldn't or don't need to because they don't have to is just inane in my opinion. What's wrong with the Consuls asking the electorate to decide an issue (essentialy what allowing them to post official polls does)?

So I feel strongly that everyone, Consuls included, should have the right to post official polls. The only stipulation I think we really need is perhaps a requirement for a pre-poll discussion because I don't like seeing knee-jerk reaction polls constraining our policies.

	11-02-2004 22:29									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I agree with Arne on the issue of consuls posting bills.

Why shouldn't they be able to? In order to limit their power?

What it does is the exact opposite. It encourages the consuls to make their own decisions. With official polls, it's the Senate which actually decides what to do. How is that giving the consuls more power when the Senate is the one making the ultimate decision?

	11-02-2004 22:36									#12
	Get a bigger avatar today!

How about this:

1) A Pre-Poll Discussion thread MUST exist before an official poll can be started.

2) Any re-poll attempt must be preceded by another discussion thread (obviously stating why the hell people feel it necessary to re-poll) as well as endorsment by at least 3 people.

	11-02-2004 22:37									#13
	Tired of ads?

oh btw, I forgot to mention it but I also support Consuls being able to post official polls.

	12-02-2004 00:23									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Simply stifling...

If enough people think that a poll is wrong and that more discussion needs to take place then they can say so in the poll thread. They can vote no and indicate that they would like to discuss it. Then another poll can take place.

I just don't get what the problem is? Are you saying that the forum is full of spam and we need to implement some rules before we have too many threads?

Don't muzzle the Senate; don't reduce their powers; don't make this game about the Consuls.

	12-02-2004 00:28									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I agree that Consuls should be able to post a poll. If it were made illegal for them to post one it should also be illegal for them to vote in one as well; which is ridiculous.

The President of the US submits bills for consideration to Congress all the time. How is this any different? The weight of a poll is the same in its legality regardless of whom posted it or whom sponsors it. The only difference is if it passes by a vote of the teams membership or not; which is the way it should be.

	12-02-2004 00:52									#16
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

In order for people to have a proper perspective there needs to be discussion beforehand. As the recent thread showed, there are a lot of lurkers and people who just post in polls. They aren't kept up as well on events that go on behind the scenes. In order to have an informed voting populace we need to have discussion prior to things being polled.

I can recall numerous situations when the way a poll is going is completely turned around by a single argument in a single post. That shows a lack of preparation and misrepresents the true opinion of the team.

Or do you think having an uneducated voting body is more productive to our team?

	12-02-2004 01:18									#17
	Put an end to popups!

I'm fine with the way things our now, except I don't see a reason to restrict anyone's rights to start a poll consul or not.


If the game was slower paced, then I'd be all for having a more complicated process of pre-discussion etc. Too much of that though and either the poll becomes irrelevant by the time it is concluded or we end up delaying the game.

The one rule I do think we should have regarding re-polling within a given time frame on the same issue:
The latter poll overrides the first if and only if the voter turn out is within 75% of the original poll.

Example:
I poll about banning lollipops and it passes 17 to 3.

Trip repolls tommorrow and this one makes them legal again, but the turn out is 7 to 5.

There were 20 votes in the original poll, and 12 in the 2nd. The 2nd poll would need 15 votes to override the earlier poll. (as an indicator that at least some of the original voters have changed their mind).

If more than 2 weeks have passed (10-14 turns), then the 2nd poll is automatically valid.

Of course 75% and 2 weeks are flexible and debatable, this was just an example.

	12-02-2004 01:26									#18
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Ah...

This is one of those things I do NOT miss from the original demo game...

Hey, why don't you guys argue what an abstain should mean while you're at it.

IE:

A given poll gets 20 yes, 10 no, and 10 abstain votes. Does it pass?

	12-02-2004 01:38									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by wervdon I'm fine with the way things our now, except I don't see a reason to restrict anyone's rights to start a poll consul or not. If the game was slower paced, then I'd be all for having a more complicated process of pre-discussion etc. Too much of that though and either the poll becomes irrelevant by the time it is concluded or we end up delaying the game.

Well, we can always hold the save for a few days in case a really important and abrupt issue comes up. In that case, I would prefer that there would be some discussion before such an important poll. At a bare minimum I think we should have a discussion thread open for ~2 days just to get the bare arguments out into the open.

quote: The one rule I do think we should have regarding re-polling within a given time frame on the same issue: The latter poll overrides the first if and only if the voter turn out is within 75% of the original poll. Example: I poll about banning lollipops and it passes 17 to 3. Trip repolls tommorrow and this one makes them legal again, but the turn out is 7 to 5. There were 20 votes in the original poll, and 12 in the 2nd. The 2nd poll would need 15 votes to override the earlier poll. (as an indicator that at least some of the original voters have changed their mind). If more than 2 weeks have passed (10-14 turns), then the 2nd poll is automatically valid. Of course 75% and 2 weeks are flexible and debatable, this was just an example.

This is a good suggestion.

	12-02-2004 03:25									#20
	Get a bigger avatar today!

...If it ain't broke....

	12-02-2004 04:12									#21
	Increase Your PM Length

And if it is...

	12-02-2004 04:49									#22
	Suffering from ads?

oh it's definitely broke.

Well not broke, but we have to ask ourselves: is the current handling of polls in the constitution the best and most optimal it can be?

I don't think so, since the poll problem has been brought up more than once. It's our job now as a team to make it better.

	12-02-2004 05:35									#23
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx A given poll gets 20 yes, 10 no, and 10 abstain votes. Does it pass?

This has already been covered. The answer is YES.

	12-02-2004 07:38									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Master Zen oh it's definitely broke. Well not broke, but we have to ask ourselves: is the current handling of polls in the constitution the best and most optimal it can be? I don't think so, since the poll problem has been brought up more than once. It's our job now as a team to make it better.

Lets poll it.

	13-02-2004 02:55									#25
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Arnelos This has already been covered. The answer is YES.

Most of this argument has also been covered, but here it is again.


I still find that answer to be both silly and wrong, but who am I?

Funny how the GAME does not see it the same with reguards to the UN vote. (3 yes, 1 no, and 2 abstains will NOT win the UN)

	13-02-2004 03:35									#26
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx Most of this argument has also been covered, but here it is again. I still find that answer to be both silly and wrong, but who am I? Funny how the GAME does not see it the same with reguards to the UN vote. (3 yes, 1 no, and 2 abstains will NOT win the UN)

The reasoning is that this creates a meaningful distinction between a "no" vote and an "abstain" vote. A "no" vote really means no (you are voting against the measure), whereas an "abstain" vote is actually an abstention from voting... you are registering your presence, but willfully choosing not to have an impact on the outcome... which is what "abstain" really means anyhow.

	13-02-2004 03:47									#27
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I agree with those that say an abstain vote should either count for something or it should not be an option in our polls. The only reason there's an "abstain" option for the UN vote in the game is that there's no "no" choice available; which is why it's an "abstain" choice. In the game abstain=no. In the forum, here, people have the option of not voting at all or voting yes or no. An abstain option serves absolutely no purpose; and don't give me crap about how it tallies the number of voters...who cares! We do not need to census every poll. And if it was the intention to census the poll, then you should makr it clearly as such instead of "abstain."

To sum it up:

An abstain option should exist where there's not a choice you like and want to maintain the status quo.

It should not exist in a poll that has "yes" or "no" options since the "no" option provides a means to keep the staus quo.

If anyone argues with me about this I'm going to whip you with a wet noddle!

	13-02-2004 04:03									#28
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: The reasoning is that this creates a meaningful distinction between a "no" vote and an "abstain" vote. A "no" vote really means no (you are voting against the measure), whereas an "abstain" vote is actually an abstention from voting... you are registering your presence, but willfully choosing not to have an impact on the outcome... which is what "abstain" really means anyhow.

Tell me, oh politician, how would the given scenario effect a session of congress?

If you cannot get enough people to want to commit to infuencing whatever poll YES, then it should not pass, as you do NOT have a majority in approval.

	13-02-2004 04:54									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

-shrug- Its a simple question of: Do 50% of the voters have to vote for a bill, or just more than voted no? In my opinion, you want a true majority to be in favor.

Besides abstains are useful for two purposes:
1) it helps gage the degree of disagreement. If a poll loses 10 yes, 20 no, 3 abstain then its a whole lot more unpopular than a 10 yes, 3 no, 20 abstain poll that could possibly be reworded and repolled for a yes.
2) It helps track participation which would matter if we start requiring a specific voter turn out for polls or (more likely) repolls.

	13-02-2004 05:03									#30
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

lord help us, hell is freezing over, but I actually agree with BF. Having an abstain option is pretty silly since you can simply refrain from voting. You can make your presence felt by actually POSTING saying why you are not voting.

Rule #1 of a good voting system: An abstain option only should exist when voting requires a QUORUM. (ex: 50% + 1 of all members before it passes). In that case, it is important to have people registering their opinion. In our case, no such thing exists in the constitution since a poll can pass even if it wins 1-0 and thus, an abstain option is not necessary.