Amendment Proposal: Honour bound explanation of voting

[Obi Wan Asterix]

Fellow citizens, I am proposing the following change in order to bringing back what I consider to be a good tradition of the past that was abandoned due to a bad wave of puritanism in the Curia in late 2005.

I hope you will understand that this gesture is intended to enhance the interest in the voting threads as well as making their content just and fair and simultaneously adding for an opportunity for members to explain their vote in the appropriate thread.

We are a senate! I have confidence that my colleagues will not breach the confidence of this change.

Introducer: Asterix
Supporters: Ragabash

Article 3 - Legislative ProcedureAny Citizen may post a bill in the Prothalamus for discussion. Bills can take two forms.
Amendments - A proposal to alter the text of the Constitution. Amendments can alter or remove existing text and add entirely new text.
Decisions - A proposal for the creation of an official Decision of the Curia on a topic relevant to the functioning of TWC. The Curia has authority to direct the Officers of TWC in this way on any topic of which the primary say has been delegated from the Officers, who shall take such Curial Decisions under strong advisement. The Speaker of the House shall determine if proposed Decisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Curia.

The procedure for proposing and voting on either bill is the same. Each version of the bill requires named support from at least three Patricians and must be debated for at least three days in the prothalamus before the proposer can request the bill be moved to vote. If, after three days the debate is still active, the Curator may delay moving the bill to vote after one month. A delay of longer than a month is at the Curators discretion only upon at least three patricians requesting more time for debate.

When a bill is moved to vote, the debate thread is left open, and the Curator shall post the newest draft of the bill, the name of the proposer, the name of the bills three named supporters, and a link to the debate, as a new poll in the Curia Votes forum. All bills shall be voted on for one week. Subsequent posts in this thread, are limited to notification of having voted. Messages lobbying to vote for or against, including via Signatures and Avatars, are prohibited except in the original debate thread. All bills shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour. If any bill fails a vote, no re-vote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted within twenty-eight days.

All citizens are honour bound to not view the results of Curia Votes until they have themselves voted, unless necessary for the execution of any other duty to the site.

Article 3 - Legislative ProcedureAny Citizen may post a bill in the Prothalamus for discussion. Bills can take two forms.
Amendments - A proposal to alter the text of the Constitution. Amendments can alter or remove existing text and add entirely new text.
Decisions - A proposal for the creation of an official Decision of the Curia on a topic relevant to the functioning of TWC. The Curia has authority to direct the Officers of TWC in this way on any topic of which the primary say has been delegated from the Officers, who shall take such Curial Decisions under strong advisement. The Speaker of the House shall determine if proposed Decisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Curia.

The procedure for proposing and voting on either bill is the same. Each version of the bill requires named support from at least three Patricians and must be debated for at least three days in the prothalamus before the proposer can request the bill be moved to vote. If, after three days the debate is still active, the Curator may delay moving the bill to vote after one month. A delay of longer than a month is at the Curators discretion only upon at least three patricians requesting more time for debate.

When a bill is moved to vote, the debate thread is left open, and the Curator shall post the newest draft of the bill, the name of the proposer, the name of the bills three named supporters, and a link to the debate, as a new poll in the Curia Votes forum. All bills shall be voted on for one week. Subsequent posts in this thread, are limited to notification of having voted rational explanations of a vote and its motivation, and may not contain a demand on others to vote in the same way. Messages lobbying to vote for or against, including via Signatures and Avatars, are prohibited except in the original debate thread. All bills shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour. If any bill fails a vote, no re-vote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted within twenty-eight days.

All citizens are honour bound to not view the results of Curia Votes until they have themselves voted, unless necessary for the execution of any other duty to the site.

Green - added
Red - taken away

[Ragabash]

I support, altough I find this line rather unnecessary.

and may contain a demand on others to vote in the same way

[Obi Wan Asterix]

I support, altough I find this line rather unnecessary.

and may contain a demand on others to vote in the same way

Changed to may not which I originally intended.

[the Black Prince]

i do not support.


the place for opinions is the prothalamus. The Curia Vote is just to allow you to vote.

It also defeats the point of secret voting. Its well known that if the Yes or No bar is substantially winning, people will just vote like sheep on the winning line. That's why we implemented the procedure whereby Citizens were honour bound not to view poll results till after they had voted. That's pretty much defeated if immediately under the vote there's a long string of "voted yes"

[Obi Wan Asterix]

i do not support.


the place for opinions is the prothalamus. The Curia Vote is just to allow you to vote.

It also defeats the point of secret voting. Its well known that if the Yes or No bar is substantially winning, people will just vote like sheep on the winning line. That's why we implemented the procedure whereby Citizens were honour bound not to view poll results till after they had voted. That's pretty much defeated if immediately under the vote there's a long string of "voted yes"

Good point. Although I think its possible to block poll results now.... but not sure about that.

I still think barring explanations or giving away of the vote, I still advocate an explanation of vote, which is a lot more informative and awareness raising than the spam of "voted" at present.

[Garbarsardar]

I'm rather ambivalent on this Asty. You know, the holy secrecy of the vote and all that...

[the Black Prince]

well, i'd rather see the curia vote become a no-reply poll zone. the lists of "voted" are indeed simply spam and unnecessary

[Spiff]

we could always just disable posts counting in the tab and curia-vote..

But anyway, i wouldnt want to see people stating how they voted in the poll thread again.

[Kagemusha]

I support. I have the faith on my fellow citizens that they are all able to make independent decisions, based on their own judgement. Those who seek influences from the decisions of others,will no doubt get them already from Prothalamos. I think it would be lot better to post something with meaning when one votes, rather then just spam the Curia vote section,with "voted" posts. If this proposal doesnt catch wind,then in that case i suggest someone to open up another amendment which would cancel all posting during votes in Curial vote section completely. But i think we should first vote on this proposal, if it gets the support it deserves here in proth.

[Tom Paine]

How many times has this been raised and ended in defeat because of the sacred nature of the secret ballot, the hidden vote? That still holds supreme. Arguemnts for and against this have been lodged so many times...

[Fabolous]

How many times has this been raised and ended in defeat because of the sacred nature of the secret ballot, the hidden vote? That still holds supreme. Arguemnts for and against this have been lodged so many times...

When was the last time this issue went to vote? Its been some time from what I recall. Things change.

Anyways, I'm rather ambivalent. I expect civs to be indpendent... as long as no one is required to say how they voted, I'm fine with it being allowed. However, I'm not exactly convinced it helps anything.

As for civs falling in line like sheep... they can do that now as well, no? You can check how a vote is going before you vote. You aren't supposed to of course, but when has something being something "aren't supposed" to do but is but has guilt completely unprovable stopped most?

[imb39]

If people wish to proclaim thier vote to the masses, they have a place - the Prothalamos. I see no need for this in the Curia Vote.

[imb39]

The key thing is will it help or hinder the decision making process. I can see how it can hinder. I see absolutely no reasons for it helping.

[Wild Bill Kelso]

I will have to go against the opinion of my esteemed family members. I enjoy the current system and feel that discussion should be left in the Proth.

[Simetrical]

It's annoying. We effectively get two fora of debate as soon as the vote opens up. I oppose, let people discuss in the Prothalamos and vote in the Curia Vote.

[Halie Satanus]

Every vote is sacred' and as with the original subject of my opening line spillage is a problem. I do not support.

[Zuwxiv]

I agree with tBP, imb, and Simetrical. There already is a place to discuss the matter at hand, why debate it twice?

The whole point of not seing the results is to think for yourself and make your own decision, without seeing the results of anyone else. Sure, if you follow the Prothalamos you can see who supports it, and figure out some votes. But seeing:

Voted yes
Voted yes
Voted Yes!
YES!
Voted yes.
Voted.
Voted yes.
Voted no.
Voted yes.
Voted for it.
Support.
I voted for it.
Voted yes.

...is the same thing as viewing the results. There is a place for discussion, and then there is a place to cast your ballot. When everyone else is holding their ballot in their hand is not the time to start a new discussion.

I do not support this Ammendment. It would neither prevent spam nor help the votes be unbiased.

[Virgil]

I dont like this plan. For one I think it will drive voting down. If people after they vote have to post a full explanation of why then they will just skip it. Human nature - we're lazt sometimes.

second - the citizens are already honor bound - if they cheat then they cheat and there is nothing to do about it. Same as in real life - votes are skewed all the time. Not everything can be perfect.

people in the curia who vote both have a large number of posts nor seek to actively increase them through posting - voted. It seems silly that voting members are posting simply to spam.

making it a no posting zone would further degrade any chance of trying to keep track of active participators making the impossible task of the patrician class that much harder. They hardly nominate now - why remove another piece of evidence from their stable and bring recruitment down even further?

Bottom line is that the system isn't perfect but not much is going to make it better. The only solution is to block view vote results. If that can be achieved then everyone is happy. Otherwise I say leave it as it is.

[Ragabash]

Let us be honest, I'm quite sure that some of the citizens that vote never visit threads inside the Prothalamos.

If we would allow statements and discussion inside the votes, there is a bigger chance that citizens are more informed about the matter and thus can make better decisions.

[imb39]

Can someone explain to me what possible advantages it gives? I simply do not understand.