The Branding Rule

[Excidium Planetis]

Optiom 2a does not remove the co-authors from the text, and neither states nor implies any such thing. Therefore, yes, option 2a does mean the author can choose whether or not they want to put the co-author credit in the text... Because that is the current rule, and 2 a does not remove that.

No, it does not say that. I'll explain what it says: option 2a proposes creating an out-of-text field specifically for co-authors, like the current "author" field. It is optional in the sense that authors may choose whether or not to use it depending on whether or not they have co-authors.

Yes, I agree on that. Where we disagree is here:

The function would have no purpose if authors could choose to either use it or place co-authors in the text of the resolution.

Yes it would. The official co-author box might look nicer, be easier to recognize, or be linked to a co-author badge, whereas listing the co-author in the text may be a matter of personal preference, or a way to list a coauthor without them being recognized for it as much.

Under option 2a, co-authors continue to exist, but not in the text of the resolution.

But that's not what 2a says. 2a does not state that co-authors cannot be put in the text.

Then Option 5 is either as I described or Option 1. It doesn't matter, either way I counted it towards removing co-authors.

Option 5 was Gruen's particular desire to eliminate co-authors from the text of the resolution entirely. It was essentially an "either option 1 or 2a" choice, because they both eliminated co-authors from the text of resolutions. Gruen even acknowledged that option 2a removes co-authors from the text of the resolution here:

5) Other

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

Emphasis mine.

That isn't an acknowledgement that 2a removes co-authors from the text at all, that's simply an admission that Gruen would support a co-author field as long as co-authors were removed from the text. Gruen did not mention 2a at all.

The additional coauthor box is exactly what option 2a proposes/

Yes, I won't deny that. But just because it proposes an optional box does not mean it removes co-authors from the text.

[Euroslavia]

You can add me to that list. But I don't support co-authors. But some kind of regional cooperation submitted by something like 'European WA Commission' would be nice. It would absolutely help create more activity in the Assembly by making people and their regions invested in this section of the game.

If you mean allowing a nation like "European WA Commission" to submit a resolution, then I agree completely. That's actually a dimension of the discussion that no one's really touched on. I think that rule is arbitrary and can circumscribe our roleplaying opportunities. I should probably refine my argument, for clarity: I don't believe in relaxing the limitations on co-authorship. I would prefer, like the majority of voters in this thread, to eliminate co-authors in the text of resolutions altogether.

I'm of the same opinion. Create an option to add up to two or three (leaning towards limiting it to 2 maximum) co-authors in a separate field (before or after) the text of the proposal.

[Sciongrad]

Yes it would. The official co-author box might look nicer, be easier to recognize, or be linked to a co-author badge, whereas listing the co-author in the text may be a matter of personal preference, or a way to list a coauthor without them being recognized for it as much.

??? Why would the admins create a resolution field if players didn't have to use it? That's like if authors could choose whether or not they wanted to use the author field or place their name in the text of the resolution. Why would the author field exist if the author could use the text? Admins aren't going to waste time on something just for the sake of it existing.

But that's not what 2a says. 2a does not state that co-authors cannot be put in the text.

Yes, that is what it says. You're unreasonably interpreting the word optional, which when contextualized obviously doesn't mean what you're suggesting. But I don't think I'm going to convince you otherwise, so let's agree to disagree here.

Yes, I won't deny that. But just because it proposes an optional box does not mean it removes co-authors from the text.

Yes, it does.

I'm of the same opinion. Create an option to add up to two or three (leaning towards limiting it to 2 maximum) co-authors in a separate field (before or after) the text of the proposal.

I think concerns of region pimping or advertising are exaggerated. Although Kenny has pointed to contrary historical evidence that I wasn't around to assess personally, so I could be wrong here. I don't think increasing the cap on co-authors is a good idea. If we're going to allow co-authors at all, I think one is fine. As I've said before, in-text co-authors create a GA culture that puts a lot of emphasis on glory. Ideally, I think we should eliminate co-authors and badges, but I'm not holding my breath.

[Excidium Planetis]

Okay, looking again at the

1: 9 (Knootoss, Sciongrad, Snefaldia, Omigodtheyclonedkenny, Tzorsland, Frisbeeteria, Phydios, Separatist Peoples, Imperium Anglorum)
2: None
2a: 5 (Glen-Rhodes, Greater Louisistan, Bears Armed, Railana, Euroslavia)
3: 3 (Excidium Planetis, Defwa, Christian Democrats)
4: 3 (Mallorea and Riva, Losthaven, Unibot III)
5: 2 (The Dark Star Republic, Sierra Lyricalia)

And factoring in Euroslavia, whose response seems to indicate option 2a, we have the following results:


16 out of 22 voters call for the removal of coauthors from the text, if we go by Sciongrad's argument that 2a calls for text removal, and even by my reckoning, it's 11/22.

But 11 out of 22 support coauthors existing in some form, and 13 out of 22 if you include those who chose option 5, who would support co-author boxes as long as the text has no coauthors.

So, it seems that a majority would favor removal of coauthors from the text, and a majority would favor co-author boxes. I think we could agree to the compromise that coauthors are removed from the text as long as there are co-author boxes, yes?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I think concerns of region pimping or advertising are exaggerated. Although Kenny has pointed to contrary historical evidence that I wasn't around to assess personally, so I could be wrong here. I don't think increasing the cap on co-authors is a good idea. If we're going to allow co-authors at all, I think one is fine. As I've said before, in-text co-authors create a GA culture that puts a lot of emphasis on glory. Ideally, I think we should eliminate co-authors and badges, but I'm not holding my breath.

Given the level of support for removing the rule, I would infer that at least some of it is grounded in a desire to advertise regions in proposals. IA's suggestion of "Co-authored by European WA Commission" was particularly telling. Also to mousey's point that listing such groups gives voters a false impression of support that resolutions may not actually have. I can list AO as a co-author on my next repeal - that does not mean that a consensus or majority of AO members support it, or are even aware of its existence.

[Unibot III]

Given the level of support for removing the rule, I would infer that at least some of it is grounded in a desire to advertise regions in proposals.

It's not about advertising but recognition; if the group can't be recognized together, the point of making the resolution collectively is kind of lost as far as a region is concerned. For example when I created the Rejected Realms Issue Committee, it wasn't about advertising for the Rejected Realms - that'd be silly, we don't need advertising and that's a terrible way to recruit - it was about, well, finding something for the region to work together on. For the same reason I can see WA working groups working, but the political will to get those groups running isn't there if the region can't even get recognition for working on these resolutions.