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.
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.
Comment