NationStates

I don't support getting rid of co-authors. The GA and SC function just fine while allowing them, it's just a question of slightly altering the rule itself to avoid annoying cases like players using the wrong tag etc.

I'm also with uni on this one: branding should be allowed, but only if the authors can contrive clever acronyms/acrostics of their name to sneak into the text -- after all, what's the point of legislating if you can't feed your ego while doing it?

Mallorea and Riva wrote:I don't support getting rid of co-authors. The GA and SC function just fine while allowing them, it's just a question of slightly altering the rule itself to avoid annoying cases like players using the wrong tag etc.

With all due respect, it now seems like a question of eliminating co-authorships altogether. More than a majority of active participants in this discussion seem to be supportive of the idea, so dismissing it out of hand isn't really appropriate.

Can we get a quick straw poll from people? I think we're rehashing a lot of the same arguments, and I wouldn't mind getting a final "vote" from people to get a feeling for where everyone stands with regards to co-authors. (*Note: as a reminder, NS rules/policy is not decided on a democratic basis, etc.)

Options, as I see them:

1) Eliminate co-authors entirely
2) Maintain the current rule (limit 1 co-author, [nation=short] tags)
2a) Ask the Techies for an optional "Co-author" box to fill in upon submission (to make it easier to maintain the current rule)
3) Expand the limit to 2 or 3 co-authors (*please specify two or three)
4) Adopt the SC approach for Co-Authors

---

Yes, I understand that this won't handle all of the branding rule, but if we can get a rough tally/vote on co-authors, we can hopefully focus in more on the other aspects of Branding rather than spreading our attention and posts on both aspects at one time.

5) Other

Specifically: eliminate coauthors from the text. Whether there's then some additional coauthor box implemented, maybe, maybe not, maybe don't care.

1)

The Dark Star Republic wrote:5) Other

Specifically: eliminate coauthors from the text. Whether there's then some additional coauthor box implemented, maybe, maybe not, maybe don't care.

So option 1? Or 2a? Because we've never policed what you can put in your proposal thread on the forum, in that regard, so far as I know.

I'm for option 1, personally. I wouldn't be crushed if option 2a was accepted, but I'd much prefer eliminating co-authors altogether.

Mousebumples wrote:

The Dark Star Republic wrote:5) Other

Specifically: eliminate coauthors from the text. Whether there's then some additional coauthor box implemented, maybe, maybe not, maybe don't care.

So option 1? Or 2a?

Either? Both? Neither?

Eliminate coauthors entirely from the text. Some coauthor field could be added, as per 2a, but I'm not lobbying for a coauthor field to be added; all I'm voting for is banning coauthors entirely from the resolution text. If coauthors are listed in forum threads/dispatches/NSwiki articles/etc., that's fine too. It really should not be a very difficult distinction to make, but if you genuinely can't follow and as such can't tally my vote in the poll, then I suppose that's my loss to bear.

Option 1, or Gruen's Option 5 (which sounds like a great Ska band name) if we're counting that opinion.

If there's no other reason to remove coauthors completely than just "I don't like them" -- then that suggestion should be summarily thrown out.

2a is the most sensible solution.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:

Kaboomlandia wrote:Happy to kick this off!

What I would suggest is a choice between:

• two co-authors, in short form
• one co-author, in long form - unless the signature is something of Mall/Mouse/Sedge length.

Why do you think this is superior to the current rule?


I am going to advocate doing away with the Branding rule in its entirety. If players want to waste characters listing ten coauthors I say we let the voters punish them for it. Alternatively it may allow for greater cooperation on proposals. Additionally if players wish to state their own name ten times in a proposal I think that such proposals will be weeded out at vote or in the queue.

Yes, awesome. I agree. Not that I'd do it, but say there's a proposal where three people helped co-author it, you should be able to list all of them you feel it is necessary to list. Obviously, delegates should be smart enough to not support submitted proposals that feature your nation name 20 times at the bottom.

But I'd settle for #3 of Mousebumples options (with 3 co-authors) if the SC rule is not accepted.

1)

failing that, 2a)

1.

4, and I'll go the extra mile and explain why. It works in the SC. There aren't lists of coauthors twenty pages long despite the concerns here in this thread. I'd rather give players the freedom to write their proposals as they wish in regards to branding and have the mods take a more hands off approach. Let the players decide what is worthy and what isn't.

Mallorea and Riva wrote:I'd rather give players the freedom to write their proposals as they wish in regards to branding and have the mods take a more hands off approach. Let the players decide what is worthy and what isn't.

So why isn't this same philosophy applied to NatSov repeal arguments, to proposal format and "blogposals"? Or is this all just a prelude to you removing whatever tatters remain of the Honest Mistake rule?

The Dark Star Republic wrote:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:I'd rather give players the freedom to write their proposals as they wish in regards to branding and have the mods take a more hands off approach. Let the players decide what is worthy and what isn't.

So why isn't this same philosophy applied to NatSov repeal arguments, to proposal format and "blogposals"? Or is this all just a prelude to you removing whatever tatters remain of the Honest Mistake rule?

I do apply this same philosophy to those things. I just haven't posted in the blogposal thread yet.

2a

1

Mallorea and Riva wrote:4, and I'll go the extra mile and explain why. It works in the SC. There aren't lists of coauthors twenty pages long despite the concerns here in this thread. I'd rather give players the freedom to write their proposals as they wish in regards to branding and have the mods take a more hands off approach. Let the players decide what is worthy and what isn't.

The fear isn't that the list will be long. That, on its own, isn't really a bad thing. But including co-authors at all just reeks of ego inflating. And I don't think it works in the SC. While I certainly don't participate in the SC, I generally perceive it as a place that celebrates self-gratification. I don't think you'll convince anyone of the success of anything here by citing the SC. Again, there's no problem thanking people on the forums or anything, but it doesn't make any sense to include a plug in the text of the resolution itself.

1

I'd consider 2a as a backup, but getting "the techies" to add something is never a quick solution. It's not as simple as adding a new field in the submission POST box. You'd also have to rearrange the proposals page, the At-Vote page, and the historical resolutions pages. You'd also have to create a break point at which older passed resolutions didn't have the field, and newer ones did. And that's ignoring trophies - adding a co-author trophy or even just giving them another Author trophy would involve getting into an entirely separate subroutine, and would involve changes to Update. I'm sure there are other aspects I've either missed or never knew about. I'm just saying it's not likely to be viable.

Sciongrad wrote:

Mallorea and Riva wrote:4, and I'll go the extra mile and explain why. It works in the SC. There aren't lists of coauthors twenty pages long despite the concerns here in this thread. I'd rather give players the freedom to write their proposals as they wish in regards to branding and have the mods take a more hands off approach. Let the players decide what is worthy and what isn't.

The fear isn't that the list will be long. That, on its own, isn't really a bad thing. But including co-authors at all just reeks of ego inflating. And I don't think it works in the SC. While I certainly don't participate in the SC, I generally perceive it as a place that celebrates self-gratification. I don't think you'll convince anyone of the success of anything here by citing the SC. Again, there's no problem thanking people on the forums or anything, but it doesn't make any sense to include a plug in the text of the resolution itself.

How does having co-authors reek of ego inflating?
And more specifically, why do you not like a practice that is frequently carried out in real life legislatures?
Don't users have a right to know who authored a resolution?

Excidium Planetis wrote:How does having co-authors reek of ego inflating?

Because recognizing someone's assistance can very easily be done on the forums, where anyone can see it. Inserting a co-author's name into the actual text of the resolution places an unwanted emphasis on getting recognition. All you have to do is read Unibot's claims that getting a co-authorship plug is like bathing in a pool of pure white marmoreal ecstasy and you'll see that their only purpose is to garner even more recognition for passing a resolution. Glory shouldn't be the purpose of participating in the GA, and any prospective "co-author" should only be contributing to a resolution to improve the resolution, not to get their name plastered in front of 20,000 strangers. And if the author truly feels that individual is worthy of praise, they can be mentioned on the forum, where the only people that will care can be found.

And more specifically, why do you not like a practice that is frequently carried out in real life legislatures?

The WA is not a legislature. It's an international body that passes resolutions, like the RL UN. And the real world General Assembly does not present co-authors in the text of resolutions.

Don't users have a right to know who authored a resolution?

What? Why? Assuming that 99% of voters actually did care about who wrote the resolution (they don't), I don't see why knowing who co-authored the resolution should in any way impact their decision.

Glen-Rhodes wrote: that suggestion should be summarily thrown out.

No.

Excidium Planetis wrote:Don't users have a right to know who authored a resolution?

Not really. The text of the resolution is what matters.

Three would be friendly, that's for sure.

I'm not sure if it falls under branding, but a specific time against deceptive names should be present. For instance, WA Charter Commision should not be submitting anything.