[Discussion]---Coberst

Post by **Coyote** » 2007-05-24 02:48pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote:Does anyone want to use him to experiment with a double-vote system for handing out punishments? We simultaneously start two polling threads, one asking whether or not he's guilty and one asking what kind of punishment he should get if he is...

I thought of that when I put up the poll, but in truth we are supposed to have the option in polls now for "not guilty/no punishment", so I felt that the addition of a second poll for that would be a duplication of effort-- and perhaps bring accusations of rigging up a legal recourse to "postcount +1" polls for Senators.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-05-24 03:26pm

I think Marina's main concern is poll dilution, which could be a problem. One thing I've been meaning to ask, how are we defining "simple majority" for category B votes? If they do require 50% then poll dilution could be a problem which would be solved with dual threads.

Another solution would be to hold "No Punishment" to a 50% threshold and hold all other options to greatest number of votes. The result of a poll like that give us decision and sentence in a single hit without the risk of indecision while still maintaining majority rule.

Mad · Post by **Mad** » 2007-05-25 12:00pm

Heh, another parallel between rvalencia and coberst is that their usernames appear to be all-lowercase, first letter of their first name followed by their last name.

phongn · Post by **phongn** » 2007-05-25 12:15pm

Mad wrote:Heh, another parallel between rvalencia and coberst is that their usernames appear to be all-lowercase, first letter of their first name followed by their last name.

Well, that's not too unusual.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-05-27 01:47am

Answering Spyder's quesiton since I've mostly been the one tracking the percentages for votes Simple Majority has been at least half plus one of all votes cast other than abstentions for a given recourse. It is a reason why I think the two-tiered approach ( a "punish/don't punish" poll followed by a seleect a punihsmnet poll) is probably something we should go to my only concern is speed of action.

Spyder · Post by **Spyder** » 2007-05-27 02:27am

CmdrWilkens wrote:Answering Spyder's quesiton since I've mostly been the one tracking the percentages for votes Simple Majority has been at least half plus one of all votes cast other than abstentions for a given recourse. It is a reason why I think the two-tiered approach ( a "punish/don't punish" poll followed by a seleect a punihsmnet poll) is probably something we should go to my only concern is speed of action.

How about the idea of making 50% required only for no punishment? Keeps things speedy and tidy.

CmdrWilkens · Post by **CmdrWilkens** » 2007-05-27 11:26am

Spyder wrote:
CmdrWilkens wrote:Answering Spyder's quesiton since I've mostly been the one tracking the percentages for votes Simple Majority has been at least half plus one of all votes cast other than abstentions for a given recourse. It is a reason why I think the two-tiered approach ( a "punish/don't punish" poll followed by a seleect a punihsmnet poll) is probably something we should go to my only concern is speed of action.
How about the idea of making 50% required only for no punishment? Keeps things speedy and tidy.

My worry with that is that with polls including the option of banning I very much support the idea that 60% is a good floor to have. We shouldn't ban on a whim and it should be a clear decision to do so. If we set the bar as 50% for no punishment and the plurality choice amongst punishment options wins we lose the neccessity of a 60% vote for banning.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-05-27 01:04pm

CmdrWilkens wrote:
My worry with that is that with polls including the option of banning I very much support the idea that 60% is a good floor to have. We shouldn't ban on a whim and it should be a clear decision to do so. If we set the bar as 50% for no punishment and the plurality choice amongst punishment options wins we lose the neccessity of a 60% vote for banning.

Bannings are class A votes anyway, and I don't think the should ever be included in the same thread with other punishments because of that. They're a different kind of vote with different kind of requirements according to the Senate rules. Why do we lump them together with the lesser class B punishments?

As for the time problems associated with running a guilt/innocence poll and a punishment poll, you just run both of them simultaneously.

One thread asks guilt or innocence, and the other one is "If this is person is guilty, which punishment do you favour."

Post by **Surlethe** » 2007-05-27 01:30pm

The Duchess of Zeon wrote: One thread asks guilt or innocence, and the other one is "If this is person is guilty, which punishment do you favour."

Another reason why the abstain option is so important: if you thought the person was innocent, you can simply abstain from the punishment poll without contributing to ruining quorum.

The Duchess of Zeon · Post by **The Duchess of Zeon** » 2007-05-27 02:26pm

Surlethe wrote:
The Duchess of Zeon wrote: One thread asks guilt or innocence, and the other one is "If this is person is guilty, which punishment do you favour."
Another reason why the abstain option is so important: if you thought the person was innocent, you can simply abstain from the punishment poll without contributing to ruining quorum.

A very good point.

Here's a suggestion for how we can do bans--Banning is an option for the punishment poll. The guilty/innocent poll is run simultaneously with the punishment poll. If 60% + 1 vote in favour of guilty, then banning becomes possible. If less than that, but more than 50%, favour guilty, then banning is not an option. Should banning happen to win as the favoured punishment if the person is guilty, but the guilty vote doesn't reach 60% + 1, then the next most popular form of punishment is applied automatically.