Feature Request: Referendum Tool Expansion

[Eirikr]

Title: Referendum Tool Expansion

Summary: This feature request should not affect automatic referendums, such as those for council positions or regional lordships. With that out of the way, this request is to expand the current options for the referendum tool (found on the Politics page). This expansion would allow referendums to be run for specific message groups (or guilds, or religions), allow referendum creators to be able to see the referendum at all times, and allow referendum creators to make the results automatically public. It would also add the capability for a decision option of candidates that choose to run. (For example, a referendum used to choose a Marshal could now take applicants rather than attracting garbage votes for people that do not have an interest in the position.)

These referendum changes make the tool even more relevant and allow more people to make use of it. Currently it feels strongly geared to use by either the ruler (so he is privy to every referendum) or lords only (as they are almost always the voting group).

Details: Since this request has several different aspects, I'll list them all separately:

• Allow referendums to be run for message groups (or guilds, or religions): Currently, the system is limited to specific ranks in the hierarchy, yet some realms do not work like this. It is fairly common for a realm to designate a group (not necessarily comprised of lords) that is responsible for making laws, etc. These groups are typically put into a message group. For example, Coria has a Senate. This request would add the option to allow members of a message group to vote instead of, say, lords (representative). I would appreciate a representative option for message groups as well, but that is secondary to the overall request.
• Allow referendum creators to see their referendum at all times: Currently, anyone with suboordinates can make a referendum, as dictated by the practices of their realm. However, if they do not belong to the voter group, they cannot see the referendum again until the results come in. Again, several realms may operate in such a way that referendums are acceptable for polling practices (whether or not the results go into effect). Why should the originator of the referendum not be able to see it? Are they expected to just remember the wording?
• Allow a character to make the referendum results automatically public: Quite simply, there are several cases in which a character may be collecting responses for others. This would be a voluntary option (checkbox) to preserve the current system of delivering results only to the intended audience. Public results, however, accomplish a few things: First of all, a ruler who may not be in the voting pool can be made privy to the results without worrying about another character giving him the wrong numbers. Secondly, a knight can ask his lord to run a referendum and still be able to see the result. Finally, a character can do this to give the appearance that he is being true to his word and representing whomever as they asked.
• Add an option for candidates to step forward and withdraw from the referendum: The option to select a character of the realm is almost useless as it is implemented since a voter may vote for any character within the realm, regardless of the "victim's" wishes. I can't see too many applications for this unless you want to run a really complicated "prisoner's dilemma" problem. (Vote for who will be banished or executed. Logically, you wouldn't vote for yourself, but you would want to vote for whomever you think is likely to vote you in. Or, you can make a deal with the most likely person to get rid of a mutual threat.)

Benefits:

• Allows referendums to be more flexible, making them a much more useful tool for rulers, dukes and lords alike.
• Allows for logical choices in referendums that would normally have to be run manually through letters. This takes the burden off of those players.
• Related to #2, this potentially allows for anonymity in voting for what are currently manually run referendums. Making votes public is likely an unavoidable side effect in many cases.
• Brings player-originated referendums into line with automated referendums. Powerful options like choosing candidates and making the results public can now be used in settings such as choosing Marshals or Service to the Realm votes (that is, rewarding a noble of the realm for his service, as voted by his fellow nobles... I had to come up with another example).
• And much, much, more! (I'll add them as they are mentioned or I think of others.)

Possible Exploits:

• Limiting important decisions to specific groups (for example, cutting a duke out of the system so easily). That is why automatic referendums are not subject to these changes. The referendum tool doesn't perform any actions as currently coded, it only provides results. Issues usually presented in a player-originated referendum can already exclude characters (laws, for example); this would not change that. As such, specific groups shouldn't be restricted from using this tool.
• Referendum spam may increase. I don't know how frequently players actually use referendums, but once the paradigm of referendums being an exclusive power of the ruler was broken in Coria, we had a lot of referendums crop up. They weren't actually spam, but the volume was hard to deal with. Theoretically, a player could post as many referendums as he wanted. This is currently possible, but this change would make referendums a more obvious choice.
• Numbers have power. Referendums might replace several other methods for resolving a dispute. It will also open up the possibility for them to be used as improvised courts of popular opinion.

[Eirikr]

I think I got everything I wanted in there. If anyone wants to add something, let me know.

Also, if someone with authority wants this split into several feature requests, I can do so.

EDIT: I just thought of two things. First, the voting groups should not be limited to message groups, but also include guilds and religions. Second, I think a potential coding issue with this would be determining who can call a referendum and for what audiences. This is currently limited by allowing you to poll only those under you in the hierarchy. How difficult would it be to expand the current code to provide capabilities for determining rank for guilds and religions or determining membership for message groups? (I believe message groups should be able to make referendums for that group without restriction since they can be for any purpose and lack a hierarchy associated with the message group itself. Guilds and religions would be just as complicated as the existing system, but I believe a first attempt could just give all non-aspirants the capability to make a referendum.)

[Chenier]

I'd like the option for public referendums, where you know what everyone voted for, although that obviously shouldn't be on by default.

[Eldargard]

I also like the idea of optionally public referendums. Ideally one could even decide that game initiated referendums are to be open or closed.

[^ban^]

This is much more complicated than you might think, but it is something that I've been wanting to do for about a year now. As the Doctrine conversion makes progress, I fully intend to work on implementing something very similar to (if not the same as) this.

[Eirikr]

This is much more complicated than you might think, but it is something that I've been wanting to do for about a year now. As the Doctrine conversion makes progress, I fully intend to work on implementing something very similar to (if not the same as) this.

I think you underestimate how complicated I think it is. :)

I'm fully willing to have it simplified for coding's sake. It's also fine if it becomes four different phases of improvements. I'm just happy that the end goal is approved.

[^ban^]

I think you underestimate how complicated I think it is. :)

No, I really don't. No matter how this is approached it will require changes to the database structure.

[Penchant]

No, I really don't. No matter how this is approached it will require changes to the database structure.

Good thing I hear ban is the database genius.