Electioneering - should it be allowed?

[imb39]

Edit - split out from the Staff Proposal: New Direction of the Curia 2 thread

A double post, but for a reason...

Often, when having elections, it seems that one or two use the PM system to garnish votes, or to publicise the existance of said vote. Now I have no moral problem with this at all, but Sim made a pertinent point about inboxes filling up etc. Others do produce much wailing and gnashing of teeth. Should we also examine this in this proposal? I mention this because it has happened several times, each time nothing has been done. With this in mind - what ideas do people have?

For me, if a candidate is found to do this then they should be removed from the poll. What about if others are involved?

[Perikles]

I think that if a person does PM someone telling them of the existance of a vote/to vote for them, they should be removed from the poll. Or everyone would do it, it's either evryone PMing or nobody, and I would much rather nobody PMed...

[imb39]

What about if you were running and someone else, be they a Patrician or Civitate PMed on your behalf? Let's assume you do not sanction this btw.

[Perikles]

What about if you were running and someone else, be they a Patrician or Civitate PMed on your behalf?

No one should PM, full stop.

[imb39]

but if they did...

[Perikles]

but if they did...

They just wouldn't, but if they did they should be punished by open season spamming on their inbox...

Or maybe a warning/censure

[imb39]

OK. jp favours a warning/censure. Any other views?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

if we go for a rule like this it should be very simple -

'any PM's about elections = punishment'

punishment could be referring the person to the CdeC for an automatic demotion vote, that would let the CdeC decide how serious it had been and give a bit of flexibility?

[Fabolous]

Well, I see no problem with PMs that make no attempt to influence the votes... but whatever.
However, if we are going to ban Pms about votes, that gets complex, do you get punished if people PM for you? If you don't know? I would think not, but what if you get votes for their (now illegal) work?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

hmmm, maybe this should be something that should be proposed as a new bill at some point, rather than included in this change

[Perikles]

How about No one PM's about elections full stop!

It can't be that hard to understand...

[Fabolous]

hmmm, maybe this should be something that should be proposed as a new bill at some point, rather than included in this change

I certainly agree there, this is a large and very seperate issue.

How about No one PM's about elections full stop!

It can't be that hard to understand...

Yes, how about no one flames full stop!


And yet people do it, so we have to look at what happens when they do.
(I would disagree with that anyways... but meh)

[Perikles]

I certainly agree there, this is a large and very seperate issue.



Yes, how about no one flames full stop!


And yet people do it, so we have to look at what happens when they do.
(I would disagree with that anyways... but meh)

I think Flaming and Pming are 2 totally different concepts....meh

If they do PM saying:

a) Look at the elections
b) Vote for him/me

They should go up for an auto demotion vote by the CDC as tac said. Civs-->Pleb, Pat-->Civ

PMing discussing the electiosn is fine. As is talking about it on MSN/IRC...

[scottishranger]

I think Flaming and Pming are 2 totally different concepts....meh

If they do PM saying:

a) Look at the elections
b) Vote for him/me

They should go up for an auto demotion vote by the CDC as tac said. Civs-->Pleb, Pat-->Civ

PMing discussing the electiosn is fine. As is talking about it on MSN/IRC...

I have a question; what if you just pmed someone telling them to vote in the elections, not pressureing them or anyhting, just telling them to look at the canidates and vote?

[Sétanta]

PM's are private and should totally be allowed, but only if the person doing the PMing doesn't get all up in the face of the people he is trying to influence. If that happens then the person getting PMed should bring it up in front of the Curia and within 24 hours Hexagon should decide if the person should be removed from the ballot or get warned/censured.

Public electioneering in the form of Vote For Me threads shouldn't be allowed.

[Muizer]

PMs are not an area for the CdeC to police just like IRC chats, MSN convos, e-mails, letters, phone calls or any means of communication outside the public forums are outside the scope of the CdeC.

[Silver Guard]

I disagree with censorship of PMs, its just like Muizer said (I'm agreeing with him??) they are as personaly as any private chat, and no place for restrictions to be carried on to, sure trolling and flaming in PMs can be reported, but beyond that its none of the CdeC's buissness

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

ok,

well, as I said above, the subject of electioneering (in all it's forms) won't be in the current changes. Curia can sort that one out later (I'm not brave enough...)

[Spartan]

I am glad this topic has been started as such a fortuitous time. As a couple of you may know I have been running an apathy test of sorts because I have two votes going on concurrently and I was curious as to the community's interest in voting in general given the low percentage of cast votes in prior elections.

For the test I have been contacting all eligible voters that are "active" about one of the votes, the more controversial of the two if you will. Please note that I define active as being on the boards during the election.

I sent all active eligible voters a very neutral worded "voice your opinion" PM for the one and not the other election nor the third that is in progress.

Well I must say that I am amazed with the results so far and when the elections are over I will publish my findings. Until then I will make the following statement.

Based on my preliminary results I think that the current voting system needs to be dramatically changed and some kind of incentive based system needs to be established.

On the issue of banning PM, IM, or emails being sent to people to inform them about elections, given the results so far I think it would be a moot point. Moreover I think such an action would violate perceived rights to free speech and run contrary to the social order that we have had in place for years.

BTW: There is a considerable difference between electioneering and trying to energize or mobilize the electorate.

[Simetrical]

BTW: There is a considerable difference between electioneering and trying to energize or mobilize the electorate.

Not really. Many or most jurisdictions make it illegal to give people direct incentives (e.g., money) to vote even if you don't tell them how to vote, for good reason: otherwise, liberals could go to colleges and offer to pay all the students if they provide proof that they voted, while conservatives would do the same but in churches or the like. If you find the right audience, even the most neutrally-worded encouragement can sway the vote however you like it.

In this particular case, while I make no allegation of ulterior motive on your part, it's worth noting that active Civitates who don't participate in the Curia are disproportionately modders, and therefore probably much more likely to support you in any particular endeavor (except for the current or former RTR members, I suppose). It was mostly your actions with prominent members of the Curia that were controversial.

we had a similar increas in the HS Tribunous case, and his PM was similarly innocent.

halie satanus' PMs, as I recall, said "vote for me". That's not particularly innocent. In fact, I would say that even a neutrally-worded encouragement to vote from a candidate in an election (or similar vote, e.g. vote for Divus or Opifex) is kind of implicitly encouragement to vote for the candidate.

We make it known that it is a requirement to vote for members that have ascended to the necessary rank.

I strongly disagree with this. Civitates should always be an honor, not a duty, any more than ordinary membership is a duty (which is to say, they must still obey the forum rules).

Isn't there some way in the software to automate this collection of data?

Archer could run an SQL query, if he knew MySQL. But a general-purpose thing that has a friendly interface for the tech-ignorant, no, no such thing; it's all but impossible to design anything like that. Flexibility requires complexity, basically.

Is it true that upper staff can see who voted for what even on private polls? If so, that means the data is already being collected and stored in the software

Yes, it is, and they can view it through the admin control panel. (The data has to be stored; otherwise the software wouldn't know if you had already voted.) Archer could even view PMs if he browsed the database manually.

Ah but that idea is flawed, because does the software differentiate between Curia Votes and other polls? If not, that'd be a big problem with what I'm suggesting.

It would complicate any queries slightly, certainly, but it would still be doable (WHERE forumid = 13 OR forumid = 63, something like that; I don't know what the database schema is, you might need some JOINs).

Some of you have said that PMing about elections may be a way of unfairly soliciting votes : if someone does that, then you may first warn them not to; if they persistently continue, then expose their solicitation to the Curia, and let the each Civitate judge the merit of the person's action; for afterall, Civitates are the representitives of the Curia, being themselves parts of the Curia, and it should be for them to decide. Thus it is no concern of the Admin, the Hexagon, the Staff, the CDeC, or the Curia as a body, to police what each Civitate should be creditied with the ability to judge for him/herself. That point, is thus, nul.

My logic is pragmatic, not idealistic. It runs as follows:

1. Someone who solicits votes for themselves will gain a great advantage in the vote tallies of elections. (Amply proven by halie satanus.)
2. Therefore, if this practice is permitted, elections will be strongly biased toward those willing to electioneer, to the extent that anyone is willing to do so. (Inference.)
3. Elections should be decided based on Civitates' perception of a candidate's worth, not on any other basis. (Statement of principle.)
4. Voting for someone because they ask you to is not based on perception of a candidate's worth. (Assumption.)
5. If soliciting votes is permitted, elections will be strongly influenced by a factor not related to anyone's perception of a candidate's worth. (Inference from 2, 4.)
6. Therefore, soliciting votes should not be permitted. (Inference from 5.)

I don't accept that Civitates should have the right to decide votes based on "well, he asked me to, why not". It defeats the entire premise of elections.

By implication of allowing the Civitates to vote on, e.g. Tribunous, we accept that they will not be swayed by such beggardly mumblings.

Does anyone here think they aren't, after seeing what happened with halie satanus?