Discussion: Amendment: revised polling rules

[GeneralTacticus]

DSE Pandemoniak has posted a poll, here, on economics, less than 24 hours after the close of a previous one which decided the issue. Although I, and others, beleive that as this poll is effectively voiding the result of a previous one, it is invalid, it is also entirely within the constitution. I believe that the consituton should be amended to ensure that this does not happen again, on the part of any director.

I suggest that the constitution be amended thus:

(All changed portions in bold)

Article III: Polls

Official:

May only be started by a government official. Must have official in the subjectline, and must be used as information gathering or decision making

Poll:
*Abstain
*Write-in-option
*Minimum of 2 days
*Maximum of 7 days
*Clear and not biased question and answers

First post:
*Further explanation of the questions and answers
*Link to discussion thread (if any)
*Expire date
*Stated: information gathering or decision making

Time Frame:
*No poll may be posted on a particular issue more than once in the period between two turnchats, excepting polls which have been declared invalid.
*The above rule will apply even if a new decision on a particular issue which has already been decided is part of a poll on something else; for example, a poll on a borehole being built on a particular square, if, within the specified period, the people have voted against it, could not be worked into a general terraforming poll.
*In cases where a previous poll is tied, new polls are permitted on the issue, but may only include the options that tied, along with the 'Abstain' or 'Xenonabana' option.
*If a turnchat does not occur within 7 days (168 hours) of the previous poll closing, it is considered to have occurred for the purposes of this amendment, as the opinion of the people may have changed significantly by this time.

Thoughts? Any suggestion on how it could be improved?

(Edited to include Cedayon's suggestion on tie-breakers)

[Cedayon]

The Amendment itself needs one (that I notice) more provision: Tie-breakers. Like what happened with the original econ poll in this series: FM and Green tied, with the other votes for planned (and abstain?), so there was a tie-breaker. These should be permitted so that a decision can be reached. Once a decision is made, however, that should be the end until after the next turnchat. It might be best to make it so that no new options can be added to tie-breakers, although I'm flexible on that.

The only other concern I might have is if something occurs to cause a major change in opinion, say, 4 days after the turnchat and the relevant poll has already closed... but this is something for the poll-er to consider in deciding when to post the poll. Even if something like that were to happen, only one turnchat would go by before another poll could be done.

More, and more explicit, examples could help though. Some example scenarios:

1) The DFA posts a poll on "Should we go to war with the Gaians?". The result is 'no'. The DFA cannot re-poll this issue until after the next turnchat (or 168 hours, whichever comes first), even if it would be part of a larger poll like "General Foreign Policy", or something like "Would you say yes if we allied with so-and-so or emphasised such-and-such an objective?". Alternatives like the latter must be in the first poll to be considered.

2) The DSE posts a poll on Econ, giving 3 choices (FM, Planned, and Green, with whatever psych allocs). FM and Green tie. A tie-breaker poll is started. This time, FM wins. The DSE cannot repoll the Econ SE choice until after the next turnchat (or 168 hours, of course), even if it would be "Well, what if we went Wealth with Green?", even if that very alternative had been suggested by citizens before/during the poll (it would be the DSE's responsibility to include those alternatives in the original poll, which includes the responsibility of finding out what alternatives the people are interested in). All hypothetically, of course ... note that, in the above example, the DSE would not be restricted at all from polling the Values SE choice, or something else that wouldn't affect the already polled issue(s).


edit- this is semi-OT, but would it be a good idea to have a maximum amount of time between polls on, say, Econ or Wealth choice? Just to make sure there's no "sitting" on old decisions to avoid them being supplanted by something new. Things like diplomatic relations and such may not need such a constraint, but I think the SE choices may.

[GeneralTacticus]

The Amendment itself needs one (that I notice) more provision: Tie-breakers. Like what happened with the original econ poll in this series: FM and Green tied, with the other votes for planned (and abstain?), so there was a tie-breaker. These should be permitted so that a decision can be reached. Once a decision is made, however, that should be the end until after the next turnchat. It might be best to make it so that no new options can be added to tie-breakers, although I'm flexible on that.

Ah, yes, that's a good point. I was intending to add that, but I forgot when I was writing this up. Original post edited to correct this. The original post has been edited to include this.

The only other concern I might have is if something occurs to cause a major change in opinion, say, 4 days after the turnchat and the relevant poll has already closed... but this is something for the poll-er to consider in deciding when to post the poll. Even if something like that were to happen, only one turnchat would go by before another poll could be done.

Well, I don't realyl see what could have such an effect without a chat, barring an unflux of new people or some devastating new argument; either way, it could probably wait until after. The one week time limit was just an arbitary number; I used it because it was neat, and if there is no chat for a week after the poll closes, there's no reason to be bound by an out-of-date poll.

1) The DFA posts a poll on "Should we go to war with the Gaians?". The result is 'no'. The DFA cannot re-poll this issue until after the next turnchat (or 168 hours, whichever comes first), even if it would be part of a larger poll like "General Foreign Policy", or something like "Would you say yes if we allied with so-and-so or emphasised such-and-such an objective?". Alternatives like the latter must be in the first poll to be considered.

That could be another good example to include; the borehole one was selected because it was easy and fairly uncontroversial.

2) The DSE posts a poll on Econ, giving 3 choices (FM, Planned, and Green, with whatever psych allocs). FM and Green tie. A tie-breaker poll is started. This time, FM wins. The DSE cannot repoll the Econ SE choice until after the next turnchat (or 168 hours, of course), even if it would be "Well, what if we went Wealth with Green?", even if that very alternative had been suggested by citizens before/during the poll (it would be the DSE's responsibility to include those alternatives in the original poll, which includes the responsibility of finding out what alternatives the people are interested in). All hypothetically, of course ...

I avoided making any reference to SE in the actual amendment because of how strongly people feel on the issue.

note that, in the above example, the DSE would not be restricted at all from polling the Values SE choice, or something else that wouldn't affect the already polled issue(s).

I agree; I suggested as much in the 'Green Wealth' poll.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
Well, I don't realyl see what could have such an effect without a chat ...

I can't either, really. Just wanted to bring it up to cut down on the number of unaddressed arguments.

That could be another good example to include; the borehole one was selected because it was easy and fairly uncontroversial.

And would give the Greens reason to want the amendment too

I avoided making any reference to SE in the actual amendment because of how strongly people feel on the issue.

Wise. I just wanted to be extremely clear on that particular scenario

[GeneralTacticus]

I can't either, really. Just wanted to bring it up to cut down on the number of unaddressed arguments.

Bah. I included the time limit for precisely this reason; opinions can and do change between turnchats. They just don't do that very fast, hence my limit of one week. Not that I think this will be invoked much anyway; most directors are just ahppy to get a result, so that they can post some orders and get that out of the way. It's only when you get to contentious issues like SE that you start running into problems.

Wise. I just wanted to be extremely clear on that particular scenario

I think the language is perfectly clear already.

[Lemmy]

I'd change this

*If a turnchat does not occur within 7 days (168 hours) of the previous poll closing, it is considered to have occurred for the purposes of this amendment, as the opinion of the people may have changed significantly by this time.

into this:
*If a turnchat does not occur within 7 days (168 hours) of the previous poll opening, it is considered to have occurred for the purposes of this amendment, as the opinion of the people may have changed significantly by this time.

So we can still have 1 poll/week.

[GeneralTacticus]

the problem there is that if we had a poll that lasted for a whole week, a new poll could be started immediately following the closing of the old one, thus making the old one pointless.

[Lemmy]

Yes, but if people can change their mind after 9 days (poll lasting 2 days, plus 7 days waiting), then surely their minds can change after 14 days (7 days poll time, plus 7 days waiting).
It's the time of starting which matter IMO, since a new poll will likely have new options, and the options are decided at the start of the poll, not the end.

[Pandemoniak]

How do you define "particular issue" ?

[GeneralTacticus]

How do you define "particular issue" ?

How do you define "poll"? If a poll is posted on whether or not something should be done, and the poll gives a valid result, then, as long as this amendment appleis, you cannot post another poll asking for an answer on the same thing.

[Lemmy]

The solution would be to first poll unofficially with several poll options to see what the people want, and then make an official one with the 2 most chosen options...this would be within the amended constitution, right?

[GeneralTacticus]

Given that this amendment only governs official polls, yes, that would be allowed.

btw, as to the bit about 'new options': What this amendment is meant to prevent is people posting a poll with the same options as before, even if there are new options introduced; refer to some of the examples that have been given.

[Cedayon]

Originally posted by Pandemoniak
How do you define "particular issue" ?

To my understanding the following would be discrete issues:

-Our relationship with a single given faction.
-What sort of terraforming (if any) should be done with an individual square.
-One of the SE choice categories (ie government, economy, wealth, and econ/psych/labs spending would all be 4 seperate issues, unless specifically combined into a single poll).
-What tech to research next.

etc...

Clear enough? I could try to explain it better, but I'm somewhat tired after a few near-all-nighters on that compiler...

[GeneralTacticus]

I think that's a pretty good explanation. Does anyone else have any comments/suggestions/criticisms, and if not, should this go up for polling?

[Pandemoniak]

Originally posted by Cedayon
To my understanding the following would be discrete issues:

-Our relationship with a single given faction.
-What sort of terraforming (if any) should be done with an individual square.
-One of the SE choice categories (ie government, economy, wealth, and econ/psych/labs spending would all be 4 seperate issues, unless specifically combined into a single poll).
-What tech to research next.

etc...

Clear enough? I could try to explain it better, but I'm somewhat tired after a few near-all-nighters on that compiler...

That was actually why I was asking this question, maybe this line needs to be clarified : the DoSE can therefore ask in the same turnchat, though not at the same time, about economy, then about value, then about a combination of value and economy. If you're just trying to make this amendment to make the recent DoSE poll unconstitutional, this line is not explicit enough : First poll being FM or Green, second being FM Knowledge or Green Wealth, thus specifically combined into a single poll. Or do you mean that if you once polled on a subject, this subject cannot be polled again even with a combination of options ?