PUBLIC HEARING on Case 002: Legality of Diplomatic Poll

[H Tower]

Citizens of Lemuria one of your fellow citizens has raised the question of whether the current poll on how we should act towards the Austrians is constitutional.

Austria poll (http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...&threadid=73568) is unconstitutional in 2 ways: it's a multiple choice poll and it deals with 3 different topics in a single poll

This is the place for public discussion of the case. This thread will remain open for 3 days, until January 14th, at 12:30pm GMT-6.

[H Tower]

Link to the constitution

the relevant part of the constitution.

Article IV Paragraph 2 Section(e)
Multiple choice polls must have at least three options of which only one can be chosen. Such polls must at least have an Abstain option as defined in section 3(c). All other options are open for the poll creator to fill in as he wishes, as long as they are clear and unbiased.

[Immortal Wombat]

Change the constitution then. It says naff-all about how complex diplomatic polls should be managed.

Section 2: Polls - from our great, almighty constitution
2. Poll Organization:

(a) The first post of all polls must contain the following elements:
* A clear and unbiased explanation of the question and the answers, if needed;
* Expiration date, if applicable;
* Links to related threads or other information sources, if any;
* Type (see section 4) and nature of the poll: information gathering or decision making.
(b) Two types of poll organization are allowed: Yes/No polls and multiple choice polls.
(c) Yes/No polls must have three options of which only one can be chosen. The three options must be:
* Yes, meaning that the voter agrees with what was stated in the poll;
* No, meaning that the voter does not agree with what was stated in the poll;
* Abstain, meaning that the voter does not have a specific opinion on what was stated in the poll or does not wish to express it. Abstain votes may not be considered to say anything about what was stated in the poll.
(d) Alternative terms for 'Yes' and 'No' may be used in a Yes/No poll, as long as their meaning is along the same lines as 'Yes' and 'No' (examples: 'I agree'/'I don't agree' or 'In favour'/'Against'). Terms are along the same lines as 'Yes' and 'No' when the question in the poll can be rephrased so that it can be answered with 'Yes' or 'No'.
(e) Multiple choice polls must have at least three options of which only one can be chosen. Such polls must at least have an Abstain option as defined in section 3(c). All other options are open for the poll creator to fill in as he wishes, as long as they are clear and unbiased.

So ignoring for the moment the fact that starting a poll with 3 different topics is not explicitly prohibited, the poll is unconstitutional iff the red "can" is taken to mean "is physically able to be" rather than "is for everyone's convenience, allowed to be".
If we take the latter definition, I was merely starting a multi-issue, multi-choice poll, and trusting our citizens to own a brain, and our judges to know the difference between a hanging, and a swinging chad.


I'm not bothered either way, but if you really want me to trash up the forum with three more polls, then I will.

(Locutus: my favourite pain in the ass is the one I get having sat on this same chair for 8 hours straight )

[Maquiladora]

Unfortunately you cant trust some citizens to own a brain, the voting is skewed and some even disagreed to abstain, it looks like. Clogg up the forum with more polls i say!

[Martin Gühmann]

Well we have three groups of options there it is intended that you have to select from every group one option. But in this poll everyone is free to chose more options then it was intended, so it is not shure if the outcome of the poll is correct, and it should be seperated into three seperate polls. So the poll it is unconstitutionial.

I have another problem with this poll at least one possible option is missing: Leave the settler alone

Otherwise we wouldn't have so many people who voted: Abstain On Settler Issue, but voting abstain is not the same as leave the settler alone.

So the poll is biased, because one essential option is missing. And therefore unconstitutional.

-Martin

[Frozzy]

Unconstitutional. Last time was an exception.

[Pedrunn]

Sorry buddy but the line is clear. Only one choice can be chosen in the poll. So your poll is unconstitutional.
And this is in the constitution exacly because polls you can choose a lot of option are for nature impossible to control and may cause dubious results. As you can see in you own poll. It should have had 37 when it should have had 39. Not to mention that just a wrong click could make things very confusing.

And i have some crithics not based on the constitution. The first and the third color part of the polls should be together. Since you could can only vote in the third poll in case of having vote no in the first. This is really a mix up.
And the second part is the Minister of Defense job. Although you guys should alway work together! BTW, Martin although he should he doesnt have to write the leave the settler alone option. The way it is written means just that he is not considering this option because he thinks he wont does not want to do this at all.

Although i think the second argument should not be taken in account. Ypu can have more than a subject in a poll.

[Locutus]

In this case There is a problem with semantics: on Apolyton, the type of poll where one can select more than one option, is commonly referred to as multiple-choice. However, in all other contexts, multiple-choice means that you have several options of which one only picks a single one, no more, no less. As evidence for this, I present to the Court the definition of the word 'multiple-choice' from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition:

Main Entry: multiple-choice
Function: adjective
Date: 1926
1 : having several answers from which one is to be chosen
2 : composed of multiple-choice questions

The type of poll we use on Apolyton is in fact a multiple-selection poll, not a multiple-choice poll. The normal, English, definition of words is the one that should be used whever possible in interpreting the Constitution. Apolyton definitions are shady and informal and are no basis for a document as fundamental as the Constitution of Lemuria.

Apolyton's conventions are simply inaccurate in this case. This makes IW's mistake understandable but still flawed. The English definition of multiple-choice is clearly the one that the creators of the Constitution intended. As evidence of this, I present the Court with the following quotes (from the formation of the Constitution):

Originally posted by mapfi
Because those multiple-voting polls screw up the use of abstain and the percentages displayed are weird I'd either allow that type only for unofficial polls or ban it altogether.

Originally posted by Pedrunn
I made clear that there can only be the multiple choice (not multiple votings polls) and yes/no polls in the official, ellection, lawsuit poll with specific types for every one of these polls.

Originally posted by Locutus
As far as 'multiple select' polls go: there's no way to check for how many options people have voted, results of such polls are often rather ambiguous.

Further evidence for the meaning of multiple-choice comes from the Constitution itself, from Article IV, section 1(a):

(a) All official decision making will be done through polls, in which Citizens can express their opinion on issues. A poll is the standard vBB poll feature in which people can anonymously vote for one of a list of options.

The word 'one' unambiguously indicates that polls should allow Citizens to vote for only one option, not several.


Semantics aside, having multiple-select polls is simply a bad idea, as my above quotes and arguments presented by others in this case clearly demonstrate.

In addition to that, I would like to call the attention of the Court to Article IV, section 2(a) of the Constitution:

(a) The first post of all polls must contain the following elements:
* A clear and unbiased explanation of the question and the answers, if needed;
* Expiration date, if applicable;
* Links to related threads or other information sources, if any;
* Type (see section 4) and nature of the poll: information gathering or decision making.

In bold I highlighted the relevant section. When a single poll tries to address 3 seperate issues, one could argue that this poll no longer contains a "clear and unbiased explanation of the question". It is no longer clear which question is being presented, as there is no single question. Rather, there are three seperate questions, which makes the whole situation very unclear. So IMHO this poll is also unconstitutional in it's unclarity to explain the question presented in the poll.

As a consequence of all of this, I urge the Court to declare this poll invalid on basis of Article IV, sections 1(a), 2(a) and 2(e), and order the Minister of Diplomacy, Trade and Science to start 3 new polls, if he wants to consider his decisions properly supported by the Citizens of Lemuria.

[H Tower]

Originally posted by Locutus
In this case There is a problem with semantics: on Apolyton, the type of poll where one can select more than one option, is commonly referred to as multiple-choice. However, in all other contexts, multiple-choice means that you have several options of which one only picks a single one, no more, no less. As evidence for this, I present to the Court the definition of the word 'multiple-choice' from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition:



The type of poll we use on Apolyton is in fact a multiple-selection poll, not a multiple-choice poll. The normal, English, definition of words is the one that should be used whever possible in interpreting the Constitution. Apolyton definitions are shady and informal and are no basis for a document as fundamental as the Constitution of Lemuria.

Apolyton's conventions are simply inaccurate in this case. This makes IW's mistake understandable but still flawed. The English definition of multiple-choice is clearly the one that the creators of the Constitution intended. As evidence of this, I present the Court with the following quotes (from the formation of the Constitution):

personally, i don't have a webster's dictionary, and I imagine that many others don't either, therefore I use what I know from apolyton, the conventions here. the semantics just confuse those who can't be arsed to look up literary conventions or for whom english is a second language.

In addition to that, I would like to call the attention of the Court to Article IV, section 2(a) of the Constitution:

(a) The first post of all polls must contain the following elements:
* A clear and unbiased explanation of the question and the answers, if needed;
* Expiration date, if applicable;
* Links to related threads or other information sources, if any;
* Type (see section 4) and nature of the poll: information gathering or decision making.

In bold I highlighted the relevant section. When a single poll tries to address 3 seperate issues, one could argue that this poll no longer contains a "clear and unbiased explanation of the question". It is no longer clear which question is being presented, as there is no single question. Rather, there are three seperate questions, which makes the whole situation very unclear. So IMHO this poll is also unconstitutional in it's unclarity to explain the question presented in the poll.

i didn't have much trouble understanding the poll, and no else spoke up until after you filed your complaint

As a consequence of all of this, I urge the Court to declare this poll invalid on basis of Article IV, sections 1(a), 2(a) and 2(e), and order the Minister of Diplomacy, Trade and Science to start 3 new polls, if he wants to consider his decisions properly supported by the Citizens of Lemuria.

the court is already well aware of what you want done, however we'll take your reccommendation under consideration

[Locutus]

Originally posted by H Tower
personally, i don't have a webster's dictionary,

Neither do I, but the Internet is a wonderful medium Plus, ANY other dictionary should give you the same (or at least a very similar) definition. In English (outside Apolyton), the definition of the word 'multiple-choice' is a fairly obvious one, and it's the one I gave. I used Webster because it's generally seen as representative for the English language.

for whom english is a second language.

English is your and IW's first language, my third. If I can figure it out, IW should certainly be able to... Also, multiple-choice is a word that exists in many languages and AFAIK it means the same thing in all those languages.

i didn't have much trouble understanding the poll, and no else spoke up until after you filed your complaint

Just giving my interpretation of the Constitution and trying to strengthen my case Even if the explanation of the poll was acceptable, the interpretation of the outcome was already being discussed before I filed my complaint. This too indicates that the overall organisation and explanation of the poll was unclear and ambiguous, and therefore unconstitutional based on section 1(a) (in addition to the other mentioned sections).

[Pedrunn]

Are we getting too burocratic or what

CTP2DG Constitution Article IV section 2-e
(e) Multiple choice polls must have at least three options of which only one can be chosen.

I still believe this is enough. And this is the only argument from Locutus valid. Yes, in portuguese we use a direct translation of 'Multiple choice polls' give the same meaning. But this does not matter since the constitution give the meaning of it.
As you quoted me from the formation of the constitution. Multiple selecting polls are ambiguos and are not democratic. So IW, just post another poll about the attitude. The old seemed to come to a tie anyway...


Lets just decide on this issue. I want to discuss about the game not about this. I cant handle this issue going futher than monday

[Locutus]

The problem is that IW is disputing the meaning of the word 'can' in that quote Pedrunn. And he has a point, if it wasn't for the other arguments I provided...

[child of Thor]

Originally posted by Maquiladora
Unfortunately you cant trust some citizens to own a brain

That'll be me then!
As to this other stuff i agree with IW, the consitution isn't flexible enough to deal with the complexity of CTP2's diplomacy model. And in those situations citizens can raise important 'missing/messed up poll' issues in the thread if needed and it can be redone.
I just have a feeling that so far we get bogged down too often in fairly obscure details, to the detriment of the actual game - what turn are we on so far?
hmmm......is it obvious or what that my 'leader' characteristics would be 'benevolent dictator'
less power to the politicians - more power to the people

[H Tower]

more power to the court so we can make timely rulings


the court can't make a ruling for two more days

[mapfi]

Nah, the court's got more than enough power and if we get the ruling 3-4 days after the case's been filed, we're good. Just have a look at the C3DG court who's hearing for a simple case already last more than a week and probably will rule next year...