Curial Standards Initiative II of III: Voting and Legislation

[Professor420]

Curial Standards Initiative II of III: Legislation Amendment

Consilium de Civitate

Function:
The Consilium de Civitate (CdeC) manages the granting and removal of the ranks of Civitate, Artifex and Patrician through votes as per the "Patronization" and "Citizens' Behavior" sections of the Syntagma. The CdeC may also function as an advisory body to the staff of TWC in matters concerning the Curia and its Citizens.

Membership:
The Consilium de Civitate is primarily an elected body of Patricians. The full membership of the CdeC comprises of:

* 16 elected Patricians, who may discuss and vote on all matters within the CdeC forums.
* Senior Staff, who may discuss all matters within the CdeC forums, but have no normal vote.
* The Syntagma Curator, who may take part in all CdeC discussions, and has the deciding vote in cases of a tie, but otherwise has no normal vote. The Curator has veto powers over any CdeC decision and may fire any elected member of the CdeC for non-attendance.

Elected members of the Consilium de Civitate must actively participate in discussions and votes, Senior Staff participation is optional. All Councillors must provide a 350 word explanation of their vote at the same time they vote.

Legislation

Any Patrician is able to post a Bill in the Prothalamos for discussion, which does not require named support. If a version of the bill becomes supported by a minimum of three other Patricians, the proposer can request that the Syntagma Curator move the supported version of a bill to a vote three days after it was first posted.

Should it be judged that after the minimum of three days more time is needed for debate on the subject, or that the debate is active, and moving the Bill would be premature, the progression to voting of the Bill may be delayed at the discretion of the Syntagma Curator. If the Syntagma Curator decides to delay the vote on a Bill beyond one month, then this decision is subject to staff ratification in the same way as a staff veto.

Once moved to vote, all bills shall be voted on over a one-week period. All Bills will be required to run for the full duration so that all Patricians may be able to vote if they so wish. Patricians are proscribed from viewing the results of any poll in the Curia they have not voted in. In addition, responses (including indirect methods such as signatures) in the Curia Vote sub-forum will be limited to notification of having voted.

To the extent made possible by the forum software, no member will be able to view the results of a poll in the Curia until he has voted in the poll or it has closed.

If the forum software cannot reasonably be modified to prohibit viewing of poll results by any given member, that member, is hereby obliged on their honour as a Patricians not to view the results of any poll in the Curia he has not voted in unless necessary for the execution of any duties he may have to the site.[/s]

Every Patrician who votes must provide an explanation of his vote in the poll's thread at the same time he votes. This explanation is to be no shorter than 250 words. Any Patrician that votes without providing an explanation will have his vote changed by the Curator, and it will be considered as a breach of the Syntagma.

A Bill shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority in favor. Abstentions are not considered when determining whether a Bill has achieved the required proportion of voters. If any Bill fails a vote, no revote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted for twenty-eight days.

I have to give some credit to Mim for this idea. First, let me point out a couple changes. All votes will become public, and obviously the 'voting notification responses' as have been are abolished. In their stead is a paragraph or so explaining the Patrician's vote.

I think the benefits of this bill are obvious. As Patricians are expected to be active and involved, this forces them to be... it eliminates the large number of silent Patricians, who do not take part in debate, but still have a vote. If the Curia is to earn trust, we cannot also have a majority that does not debate, and votes without any indication what they are thinking. It requires an educated and informed Patrician class. There have been a number of votes I have seen where the outcome of the debate has been the opposite of the outcome of the vote. The number of people that actively debate are far too small a percentage.

There are two issues I think people may find. First, requiring an 'essay' to vote. I say, good! If someone does not want to take the 15 or so minutes, at some time during the week-long vote, how are we supposed to believe that he is making an informed decision? If the Curia is to gain any importance or trust, are we supposed to believe these people who cannot take 15 minutes to write up an explanation have spent the required time going over the debate about the legislation? Should these people retain a vote?

The second, is 'quantity over quality,' having to do with the word-count requirement. I am not completely happy with it, but I cannot find a better way. Personally I think the word count requirement is fine; it is not an inhibitively long length that would inspire filibustering or off-topic tangents. It is merely to show that the Patricians have followed the debate, and if they have not, but still vote and explain, it will be obvious (since they will likely be making already addressed arguments, and thus, exposing their ignorance).

[Publius]

On Legislation Amendments: This seems to devalue the prothalamos, what is supposed to be the center of debate and discussion, a great deal. If you have people expressing their viewpoints in a thread, debate is bound to break out at one point or another, and in my eyes that is what the proth is for, not the Curia Vote subforum.

In regards to the word count, I think it would be safe to say I am against this. If this were enacted we are producing an environment in which a very small percentage of patricians (an already small group) are participating in these processes. For those that dont wish to write an 'essay' perhaps that is a lack of dedication, perhaps it is not, but irregardless that is one of the rights they gain with the rank. Any doubts we have about users being able to vote effectively should be handled when they are voted on for patrician. Furthermore, this type of legislation allows those zealous enough about their bills to more or less 'push them through,' with less opposition. If there are a limited amount of people with the ability (rather, the constitution to hammer out an essay in order to vote), and I think it can be safe to say that the proposers have a bigger investment in their own proposals than most others, it creates a sort of imbalance in the voting paradigm.

On CdeC Amendments: Again, I disagree with the word count. However, I would very much like to see a system enacted where in members inactive for a certain duration of time (obviously if they post in the away thread, etc. then allowances could be made) are first warned, and then excised from the position if it continued.

[Professor420]

On Legislation Amendments: This seems to devalue the prothalamos, what is supposed to be the center of debate and discussion, a great deal. If you have people expressing their viewpoints in a thread, debate is bound to break out at one point or another, and in my eyes that is what the proth is for, not the Curia Vote subforum.

More than one post per Patrician will not be allowed in the Curia Vote subforum. I did not want to debate there either, but I will make it explicit.

In regards to the word count, I think it would be safe to say I am against this. If this were enacted we are producing an environment in which a very small percentage of patricians (an already small group) are participating in these processes. For those that dont wish to write an 'essay' perhaps that is a lack of dedication, perhaps it is not, but irregardless that is one of the rights they gain with the rank. Any doubts we have about users being able to vote effectively should be handled when they are voted on for patrician.

Indeed, again you are correct. But do we want Patricians who do not 'participate in these processes' to vote? What this does is remove those people who do not participate from the voting process. Patricians that have contributed to the debate will undoubtedly have more than 250 words to paraphrase or simply quote, and if they didn't participate, then is it so absurd to require them to prove that they have been informed? 250 words is hardly an essay, it is something children write in grammar school. I would lower it if that will make a difference, though.

Furthermore, this type of legislation allows those zealous enough about their bills to more or less 'push them through,' with less opposition. If there are a limited amount of people with the ability (rather, the constitution to hammer out an essay in order to vote), and I think it can be safe to say that the proposers have a bigger investment in their own proposals than most others, it creates a sort of imbalance in the voting paradigm.

The idea is not numbers, it is quality. (Isn't that an argument some have had against this? Quantity over quality, in regards to the essays?) The proposer will also be alot more informed about the issue than 'most others,' and those who aren't informed at all (a large portion of the Curia I'd assume, who even if they read the debate, do not think about it), should have the same importance as the proposer? Whether 100 people, or 10 people, vote, they will all be well informed, and I would trust 10 well informed people over those 10 plus 40 others who are not informed.

Ragabash, 250 words is not alot, but as I said, would reducing it make a difference? Is this why you oppose it? Are there any better solutions?

I understand what you are after with this legistation but this would make CVRIA even more complicated and silent then it's now, perhaps even adjourn CVRIA in long term.

Or, it could have the other effect, that the debates are far more productive, and active, and in the long term, the Curia earns some trust from the staff that would be very difficult to give if there are a large majority of Patricians who contribute no discussion to the Curia.

Its not matter how long and how many words you use to express yourself, rather do you say anything at all.

Is it? How would you feel if you tried to put up a bill, and all you had was 30 responses that entailed ill-thought out positions, irrelevant ideas, or points that have already been brought and addressed? And that is what most Patricians are going on now, I think. It IS, to some degree, about quantity. Or else we wouldn't have treatises and manifestos and books, we'd just have a bunch of very, very short essays. Language is a finite medium, and to express a complex idea, takes a considerable amount of it even if simply in length.

I don't support this either as it indirectly contradicts the Legislation section of the syntagma, not so long ago the vote threads were often full of short essays on why members had voted a certain way and i like many others felt this was used as a way of influencing votes, which was bloody annoying.

First of all, the Syntagma is not divine, this is an amendment. Second, is there something wrong with influencing voters through explanations of votes? I fail to see the problem with this. Ideally voters would only enter the voting thread knowing what they were going to write, but if we must influence them, a reasoned and logical essay is a great way to, I think.

I find it strange that someone who argues so vehemently for greater staff trust in the Curia is now proposing a bill that questions the integrity of the voters, personally i have yet to see any obvious apathy in voting so i don't see the point of this.

I would never advocate Staff trust in the current Curial environment, as I don't feel I would trust it at this point either. I have advocated trust as the end goal, not something to be given right now. In fact I've even explicitly stated this to Senior Staff. As far as "voter apathy", I can point to some CdeC decisions, as well as the Uni proposal. Furthermore, I would not expect Staff to place blind trust in a silent and unaccountable Curia, so a more 'logical' and accountable Curia would be a prerequisite for us making any important decisions or elections.

Also i think the Curia should take stance against any proposal that is introspective, not that i'm any great advocate of this institution but self legislation for it's own sake is what's driving a wedge between it and the rest of the Citizen classes.

I'm sorry but I would struggle to write 250 words,...

Your post, saying how you value succinctness, was 86 words. Would it be hard to imagine you could triple that to display you have a good understanding of an issue? And if you cannot do that, what guarentee do we have that you are in fact making an informed decision?

[Perikles]

Your post, saying how you value succinctness, was 86 words. Would it be hard to imagine you could triple that to display you have a good understanding of an issue? And if you cannot do that, what guarentee do we have that you are in fact making an informed decision?

Why the word limit? There is no point, in fact there is no point in this. And why wouldn't I be making an informed decision, just because I don't write an essay every time I vote does not mean that I am not making an informed decision...
I've been voting in the Curia for 6 months now, at least, and every time I vote I know I am making the vote that I see right. Your idea of 'the informed vote' is probably people voting exactly the same. People can be informed and vote for different things, and if everyone is justifying their vote the Voting thread will turn into a debate...

[Ragabash]

I can see what you are after Professor420 but I'm against idea that you need to write essay each time you vote in certain way. Not only this would make voting process much more complicated, also it might lead to votes that are meant to please other people as now they are public.

Also writing long essays might prove to be quite time consuming and hard for those that doesn't speak english as their native tongue, and this is taken away from their time to contribute TWC in other means and free time outside TWC.

I know that it would take me much longer then 15 minutes now and then to write long essays in english.

Professor420, I understand what you are after with this legistation but this would make CVRIA even more complicated and silent then it's now, perhaps even adjourn CVRIA in long term.

Publius have risen also some issues with this legistation that I won't copy here and let you read his post instead.

[Kagemusha]

I for one have always admired laconic expressions rather then essays when i answer questions. I dont have the need to talk all day about a matter which i can answer shortly.Its not matter how long and how many words you use to express yourself, rather do you say anything at all. I also respect short and well put answers.I dont support this.

[Halie Satanus]

I don't support this either as it indirectly contradicts the Legislation section of the syntagma, not so long ago the vote threads were often full of short essays on why members had voted a certain way and i like many others felt this was used as a way of influencing votes, which was bloody annoying. I find it strange that someone who argues so vehemently for greater staff trust in the Curia is now proposing a bill that questions the integrity of the voters, personally i have yet to see any obvious apathy in voting so i don't see the point of this.

Also i think the Curia should take stance against any proposal that is introspective, not that i'm any great advocate of this institution but self legislation for it's own sake is what's driving a wedge between it and the rest of the Citizen classes.

Once moved to vote, all bills shall be voted on over a one-week period. All Bills will be required to run for the full duration so that all Patricians may be able to vote if they so wish. Patricians are proscribed from viewing the results of any poll in the Curia they have not voted in. In addition, responses (including indirect methods such as signatures) in the Curia Vote sub-forum will be limited to notification of having voted. A Bill shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority in favor. Abstentions are not considered when determining whether a Bill has achieved the required proportion of voters. If any Bill fails a vote, no revote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted for twenty-eight days.

[Perikles]

I have never heard anything like this, I'm sorry but I would struggle to write 250 words, I can defend my view and as such, but one of my best qualities in my opinion is my succinctness and ability to not waffle on about crap. A word limit is just unreasonable, a short paragraph is better. I don't have time to write a short essay every time I post, with moderating, modding, coursework, social life etc. If this passes my ostrakon will be imminent...

[Professor420]

JP, I do not doubt you are making an informed decision. But I see about 40 votes for each issue, but at most a quarter of those people debating. If you don't debate, I would trust that you are making an informed decision. But when 29 other people do not debate and vote, half of all Patricians rarely if ever even post in the Curia and are voting, that, I cannot simply 'trust.'
If you do not feel you have the 15 minutes to type 250 words, how can you be sure you are making an informed decision. If you haven't actually critically analyzed any discussion, is that an informed decision? Simply reading them isn't always enough, but at this point, if I felt every voter was reading all the debate, I wouldn't even have this initiative. There is simply no evidence to back up that everyone, or even most, voters are making informed decisions.

[Silver Guard]

Theres this interesting mental state my Careers teacher introduced, this is cba syndrome
I'm sorry but theres not way I would write 250 words to explain what most of the time is a simple decision, most of that would be waffle, in fact beyond the first 50 I would be repeating myself. Even writing 50 words I find unneccessary
You know me prof, I spend a lot of time on this forum, and I don't exactly write short posts (outside of the RPG forum and nomination threads I have only 3 one liners I believe, out of my 1k or so, may be forgetting some). But I try and make sure most things I write is for a purpose, even if its just to make someone laugh, and I'm afraid writing 250 words on a Curial decision I'd be writing mindless crap just to make the word limit most of the time

[Wild Bill Kelso]

There are two issues I think people may find. First, requiring an 'essay' to vote. I say, good! If someone does not want to take the 15 or so minutes, at some time during the week-long vote, how are we supposed to believe that he is making an informed decision? If the Curia is to gain any importance or trust, are we supposed to believe these people who cannot take 15 minutes to write up an explanation have spent the required time going over the debate about the legislation? Should these people retain a vote?

Perhaps many of the people who do not feel the need to write out long winded explanations for issues which they have brought to a logical conclusion. Why should they have to explain themselves publicly if they have gone through the mental exercise on thier own time? To do so seems somewhat superfluous to me. I would assume that the very fact that they have been elected to the CdeC would mean that they are capable of coming to the best conclusion they see fit, and know when additional input into a topic is needed. Just because a member does not provide an exhaustive explanation does not automatically mean that they are "lazy". To imply that it does brings into question the entire process of elections in the first place, as the supposed "educated" members of the forum are the ones responsible for placing members into the CdeC.

[Professor420]

How many times and different ways must I say this? Currently, there is no way to make sure voters are making informed decisions. Why should this be left up to trust, when putting some sort of 'check' into place would make it far more thorough? As Mim had pointed out to me once, we do not legislate towards the ideal, we legislate to deal with the real. And while you all can sit there and say, "uh, well, Patricians/Councillors are supposed to be qualified, if they don't think before they vote, they shouldn't be Patricians," there is NO WAY to confirm any of that. We have NO WAY of knowing if the Patricians in question are indeed making an informed decision. We have no way of knowing whether the duty to make an informed decision they are entrusted with is being carried out faithfully. It would be fantastic if everyone informed themselves, but I can point to decisions where it is clear the vote turned out differently than the debate, and that is indicative that people are not paying attention to the debate... and if they are, and they disagree, they so arrogant as to not consider it.

I hardly call 250 words exhaustive. You all usually spend many hours on TWC. Are you suggesting spending 15 minutes to ensure the integrity of the Curia is too much? tGS, you have 22,000 posts. Is that a joke? With the exception of Publius, the argument is that 250 words is too much, that Patricians simply cannot be expected to take 15 minutes to explain their important vote. I have heard very few words challenging that this would not actually increase the level of knowledge in the forums. The former argument, if you look objectively in the realm of all the time you spend on TWC, is quite a weak one. And if you wish to pursue the latter, you will also have a hard time rationalizing that the production of a paragraph explaining the reasons for a vote will not help the quality and integrity of the vote.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

The Curia acts much like a real parliment. If you ever watch a parlimentary debate you see a few key opinionated speakers who are the most vocal. Occasionally some other less frequent contributors will add something, but in the end, everyone has followed what is going on and votes according to how they see the debate proceeding (in open votes). Debate has its purposes, but this does not mean that everyone involved in the issue must add in thier opinion and why it is such. I forsee this turning into a situation where people will put in their arbitrary "voted" statement. But instead of one word, they will simply say I agree with so and so because of such ans such. With others chiming in with very similiar responses. Then what, will you legistalte something stating that each person must come up with a unique response in defending thier opinion? Where would it end?

My take on a debate is this- two sides come to a logical conclusion on an issue. They spar back and forth, claiming victory or defeat. But in the end it comes down to the person to vote, and all the oral wizardry that some here are so skilled and fond of will either persuade others to thier view or it won't. That doesn't mean that it shouldn't occur, but it also doesnt mean that people must defend thier opinions and must add input.

[Rolanbek]

Another bill which would slow the curial voting process.

i 'm pleased at the concern shown by Professor420 that the Patricians discharge their duties in an informed and timely manner. However the increased verbiage will be only what has been discussed before in the prothalamos.

The Curial vote is not the place to introduce new argument as it has the potiential to increase the number of parameters which and or should be voted on, thus rendering the vote irrevelent at worst of skewed at best.

There could be a case for the Cdec in a disceplinary matter, as the are rendering judgement with there vote to record their thoughts on the matter. However, the CdeC is closed to most of the citizens so possibly a short statment after the vote has been decided glossing the salient points of the group decision might be in order. The Cdec is a Council in part so that no one citizen bears responsibility for its decisions as well as to bring the multiple viewpoints it does.

I like the idea of open government, but in reality it causes great difficulties.

R

[Professor420]

Rolanbeck, perhaps you are misunderstanding me. The explanation is not to bring forth new arguments, it is simply to state the reasoning behind the vote. The Patrician could even copy what he has said earlier in the thread. It is not for debate, it is to make sure the people voting have read the debate. The entire idea is that the 'verbiage' WILL be what has been discussed before.

Would it slow the process? How could it? Votes remain open for 8 days, regardless of anything.

As for comparing the Curia to a Pariliament, or any legislative body, it is not at all a good comparison in the areas relevant to this discssion. Members of Parliament, judges, administrators, etc., are almost always present at the debate. I have NOT asked that every member even has to post in the Proth. But we cannot have members, as are doing now, who may not even visit the Proth, but still cast a vote.

I forsee this turning into a situation where people will put in their arbitrary "voted" statement. But instead of one word, they will simply say I agree with so and so because of such ans such.

Exactly! Yes! That is what I want! It shows they have read the discussion of 'so and so' and the opposition's argument. It shows they have been able to critically analyse 'so and so's' argument enough that they feel confident publically supporting it. I fail to see how your dreaded situation is a bad thing. Why is Patricians explaining how they vote a bad thing?

[Tom Paine]

Because its pointless. Actually read WBK's thoughts; he says he fears people will just regurgitate-without-processing the ideas of someone else.

[Lusted]

Because they will only do it because they have to. Now i personally red threads in the Proth every now and then, but read thoroughly each bill that is put to vote to see what its intent with and whether i agree or disagree with it. If i understand what i am voting for, and vote in the matter i wish to, why should i haver to explain in a certain amount of words why? I would just end up repeating myself endelssly in those words as all i want to say is: I agree with the aim/changes of this bill/legislation.

[Sétanta]

I would support a written piece required for CdeC voters, but by coercing Patricians into making a long explanation of why they voted as they did is a bad idea for a number of reasons. First, they may not have a reason that can be filled in 250 words. They might simply have a fairly simple opinion that they can get across in as few as 50 words. Second, they may just copy what other people have been saying, so they are not really coming up with their own at all. Third, such a long winded proccess would take longer, as it takes time for people to develop a written piece they feel comfortable posting to the world in cases such as this. Also, they might be influenced by what other people are saying. This shouldn't be a risk if people are allowed to state which way they voted (yay or nay), but by having such long a detailed posts, that risk really does exist whether you like it or not.

Also, people will end up argueing each others logic for voting why they did, which is pointless and will slow the process down even more.

You seem to be worried about voters making informed decisions Professor. When you voted for them to become a Civitate, and later Patrician you placed your trust that they could make those informed decisions. By policing them, and possibly telling off somebody for making a supposedly illogical vote on something, you risk fragmenting the Curia. Is it not enough to trust a Patrician to vote on something they feel informed upon? If not, then the Curia really should not exist in the first place.

An essay on why somebody voted they way they did will not be a check, there won't be any judgement. It will just be seeing why they voted they way they did. And personally, I don't really care why they voted the way they did, just what they voted for. Again, this is not so much an action of checking, as policing. It is perfectly acceptable to allow somebody to post why they voted voluntarily, but by forcing them...you get negative results.

[Professor420]

Now i personally red threads in the Proth every now and then, but read thoroughly each bill that is put to vote to see what its intent with and whether i agree or disagree with it. If i understand what i am voting for, and vote in the matter i wish to, why should i haver to explain in a certain amount of words why?

How do you know you understand? Why have debate as you? For the less wise, or the less arrogant? I do not believe that I can give an opinion on an issue unless I've at least read discussion from both sides, and would hardly consider myself 'learned' about an issue unless I was able to debate it. You obviously feel that you, and some others, are endowed with a wisdom that makes your opinions unchangeable by reading or participating in debate, and learning things. Perhaps it is my insecurity that makes me feel the opposite way. But I do not trust that even the venerable Garb or Mim with a decision where he did not hear the argument, only the initial words that were spoken. Is that any way to make an informed decision? Do you believe you are so unique in your thinking, that no one has brought up your opposition to a bill, or questioned the reasons that you support a bill, and you should not be forced to read, and comprehend, those discussions?

First, they may not have a reason that can be filled in 250 words. They might simply have a fairly simple opinion that they can get across in as few as 50 words.

Surely they could express their opinion in 50 words. But this is not about their opinion, this is about HOW they arrived at their opinion. That, no one can express in 50 words.

Second, they may just copy what other people have been saying, so they are not really coming up with their own at all.

It would still require some reading of the debate or arguments, more than there is now. Additionally, this behaviour would probably be obvious enough to expose the Patrician's laziness and possibly cause for discipline.

Third, such a long winded proccess would take longer, as it takes time for people to develop a written piece they feel comfortable posting to the world in cases such as this.

Voting currently lasts 8 days. All the votes are in within the first three days, usually, and regardless of how many people vote, they remain open for 8 days. Again, how does this slow anything down?

Also, they might be influenced by what other people are saying. This shouldn't be a risk if people are allowed to state which way they voted (yay or nay), but by having such long a detailed posts, that risk really does exist whether you like it or not.

I think you've entirely mixed up your logic here. Please read this thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63668 . There is, in fact, tremendous bias introduced by the 'voting indication.' On the other hand, if people enter the thread KNOWING what their vote is, because they are required to support their vote with a statement, there is little, if not zero, chance of them being influenced. If they are influenced, GREAT! They are being influenced by measured statements from each voter, and not, simply, the number of votes one way or another, or some strange voting options. I don't see people being influenced by debate as a bad thing, I see it as a bonus.

Also, people will end up argueing each others logic for voting why they did, which is pointless and will slow the process down even more.

I've addressed this fallacy of 'slowing down the process' earlier in this post, and in post 15. And why is arguing logic pointless?

You seem to be worried about voters making informed decisions Professor. When you voted for them to become a Civitate, and later Patrician you placed your trust that they could make those informed decisions.

Actually, that is not accurate. I vote people as a Patrician hoping that they will contribute towards the Curia, as I did for you and Rolanbeck. I do not vote people to place trust in them, I vote people that I think will contribute and add energy and life and debate. I vote hoping they will make informed decisions, and when they cease to, then they have lost my confidence. Currently, there is no way to check whether people are indeed making informed decisions, and as I've pointed out, there is enough evidence to show that people are indeed not making informed decisions. Furthermore, the majority of the Curia hasn't even been elected, they were appointed.

An essay on why somebody voted they way they did will not be a check, there won't be any judgement. It will just be seeing why they voted they way they did. And personally, I don't really care why they voted the way they did, just what they voted for. Again, this is not so much an action of checking, as policing. It is perfectly acceptable to allow somebody to post why they voted voluntarily, but by forcing them...you get negative results.

Before I really respond to any of that, I would suggest you think about why you think each of those things. Why don't you care why people voted? Why would you get negative results from forcing people to explain why they voted a certain way... would you expect a court to not give majority and dissenting opinions, or for a judge to explain why he/she ruled a certain way?

[Sétanta]

Surely they could express their opinion in 50 words. But this is not about their opinion, this is about HOW they arrived at their opinion. That, no one can express in 50 words.

Hmmm. How about this. "I do not support the Curial Standards Initiative II Bill, because I feel that it is an unfair police action that allows others to personally attack other members if they do not vote the way they think they should."

Maybe you cannot express how you arrived at your opinion in 50 words, but to claim nobody in the entire world can is a fallacy.

It would still require some reading of the debate or arguments, more than there is now. Additionally, this behaviour would probably be obvious enough to expose the Patrician's laziness and possibly cause for discipline.

True, but you aren't really going to discipline somebody for saying that they agree with what somebody else said and don't feel that they can offer as good an explanation. They may not copy word for word, but the direction of their post might be identical to somebody elses. Is that something you are willing to punish somebody for and risk animosity for a really minor thing?

Voting currently lasts 8 days. All the votes are in within the first three days, usually, and regardless of how many people vote, they remain open for 8 days. Again, how does this slow anything down?

It does not slow the vote process down, as much as slowing down what people do. You might put people off by requireing them to make such a long post about their supported position. The idea behind this is fair enough, but forcing somebody to do this is not going to help make the Curia standards increase.

I think you've entirely mixed up your logic here. Please read this thread: http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=63668 . There is, in fact, tremendous bias introduced by the 'voting indication.' On the other hand, if people enter the thread KNOWING what their vote is, because they are required to support their vote with a statement, there is little, if not zero, chance of them being influenced. If they are influenced, GREAT! They are being influenced by measured statements from each voter, and not, simply, the number of votes one way or another, or some strange voting options. I don't see people being influenced by debate as a bad thing, I see it as a bonus.

You assume that everybody is going to be absolutely sure what their vote is going to be beforehand. What is to prevent somebody from reading through everybody elses reasoning and make a decision based on that. With all that information flowing around it is much easier to be indirectly influenced whether that influence is wanted or not.

If you don't see people being influenced as a bad thing, then why don't you think that allowing people to post "Voted yes" or "Voted no" is acceptable.

I've addressed this fallacy of 'slowing down the process' earlier in this post, and in post 15. And why is arguing logic pointless?

Again, it is not that the process of the vote is slowed down, it is slowing down the voting process to a level where people are either going to not bother voting because they don't feel the need to say exactly why or that they are going to vote and not bother posting why anyways.

Arguing logic, especially when it comes to politics, is pointless as your logic might make a proposal an awesome idea, but another persons logic says that there is no logic behind the proposal. Thats how politics work.

Actually, that is not accurate. I vote people as a Patrician hoping that they will contribute towards the Curia, as I did for you and Rolanbeck. I do not vote people to place trust in them, I vote people that I think will contribute and add energy and life and debate. I vote hoping they will make informed decisions, and when they cease to, then they have lost my confidence. Currently, there is no way to check whether people are indeed making informed decisions, and as I've pointed out, there is enough evidence to show that people are indeed not making informed decisions. Furthermore, the majority of the Curia hasn't even been elected, they were appointed.

Contributing to the Curia is making informed decisions. If they are incapable of making informed decisions, then they are never going to be of any use to the Curia, a legislative body. People can add life and energy in the Symposium and the Lower House. They don't vote because they aren't trusted to make informed decisions on the issues they are debating. That is for Patricians.

Before I really respond to any of that, I would suggest you think about why you think each of those things. Why don't you care why people voted? Why would you get negative results from forcing people to explain why they voted a certain way... would you expect a court to not give majority and dissenting opinions, or for a judge to explain why he/she ruled a certain way?

Sorry, I care why people voted, but I think it is a common courtesy and issue of trust to be able to place the trust in them to let them make an informed decision when voting with out me standing over their shoulder hounding them to back up their decision all the time. Same goes for everybody.

I think that you get negative results by forcing people to explain why they voted because of the possible consequences. You can have bitter infighting as people trash each other for claimed lack of knowledge or logic in backing up their points. It might make perfect sense to them, but if it confuses you then it is not your place to bring up disciplinary action against them.