NationStates

Bears Armed wrote:

The Dark Star Republic wrote:If that's on the table, nothing else is worth discussing.

Agreed. If all of our work is thrown out again,"to give new authors more opportunity", then I for one will be resigning from & subsequently ignoring the WA -- rather than trying to get my existing resolutions replaced -- to leave it for those new authors, and so there'd be no point in me commenting any further in these discussions

I am of the opinion too.

It's a bit stupid throwing out what's here just to let new players try. They have plenty of opportunity to do stuff here, they just have to find an angle which is palatable to do so.

Whilst I've only a single GA resolution on the books to date, I've probably about 20+ drafts in these forums. The experience has been fun, from seeing how Radiowaves and Microwaves Act fell flat on its face, blocking the floor for some useful purpose then by 8 days by having votes on "Universal Suffrage Act" and "Moratorium on Animal Testing", seeing other scary things happening like the closeness of votes in things like Auralia's "Repeal "On Abortion"" or how my "Right to Adequate Sanitation" was failing at first and then the tides changed due to McMasterdonia's and TNP's voting, or how "Ban of Perfidy in Warfare" failed miserably but ushered in a new era of Separatist People's war proposals.

If passing is the premise on which "opportunities are given on", that idea must be knocked out of people's heads. The GA game has always been on "very hard" mode, and it should not be turned down to "easy" just because of non-existent newbies (these forums are getting quieter by the day). If there's any changes it will be up to players - who will then realise that chunky widesweeping resolutions should be repealed for more minutely and intricately written pieces.

It should never be an objective to pass legislation in these places, in my opinion. More emphasis should be to the drafting method and trying to work with people and work-like politics here, which makes this place interesting than say, plain raiding founderless regions. The fun is in the process itself, like how true blue raiders are - they raid for fun, and not for the endresult of changing WFEs because they always get changed back.

---

Back to branding. I'm still more convinced that the one-nation rule is sufficient.

How about a Nobel Prize-like compromise? At most two nations listed, alongside the submitter which makes three (max for Nobel Prize-sharing). I sometimes wished to add Eireann Fae to "Right to Adequate Sanitation"'s contributions list.

Elke and Elba wrote:Back to branding. I'm still more convinced that the one-nation rule is sufficient.

How about a Nobel Prize-like compromise? At most two nations listed, alongside the submitter which makes three (max for Nobel Prize-sharing). I sometimes wished to add Eireann Fae to "Right to Adequate Sanitation"'s contributions list.

I support an upper-limit of 2 co-authors. I also support loosening the rule governing the use of the nation tag so shortform is wholly required but recommended.

Why is branding even needed at all? If you want to thank people who contributed you can list their names in the OP of the debate thread, in a dispatch, or an NSwiki article.

There is only one time when branding is almost required, which is when the resolution is so dependent on someone else's work that it would be plagiarism without a credit. But given mods have to check that kind of thing anyway, it's not needed.

It seems like the consensus in the NatSov rule thread is towards having mods enforce community standards. So, just ban branding altogether and save everyone the headache.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:There is only one time when branding is almost required, which is when the resolution is so dependent on someone else's work that it would be plagiarism without a credit. But given mods have to check that kind of thing anyway, it's not needed.

Eh, sometimes it's the fact that works are adapted based on other people's resolution with the blessing of others, which makes the entire thing needed. For example, my current "National Airspace Act" draft is contingent on the layout set up and laid out in "Law of the Seas", and I have (and happily am) crediting Bears Armed for it.

IIRC Bears Armed is St Edmund? I remember that particular resolution (forgot its name) where St Edmund is labelled as author, if my memory serves to be correct, and the submitter isn't the author but authorised to submit it.

I don't see a need to close up an exception which doesn't harm anyone in the first place, except a few additional characters at the end of the proposal.

Not to mention the odd times where bills are crafted off forums in equal capacity by two people and that both share credit for it. I think Ainocra should know this - his name appears quite often as a co-author.

No reason that acknowledgement can't be made on the forum.

Like Mall and Sedgistan, I too would support substantially loosening the branding rule.

I've always thought the restriction to one co-author was silly. Proposals are often a collaborative effort involving more than two people; I see no reason why only one of them should receive credit in the text. (However, a modified version of this rule might be necessary if [violet] eventually decides to adopt the proposal to give co-authors a WA authorship badge; if built-in fields are created to list multiple co-authors, then we might want to have a rule against listing co-authors in the text. This rule would be akin to the one prohibiting repeals submitted without using the repeal link on each active resolution.)

In addition, if people want to use nations with names that represent a region or group to submit proposals, so what? Again, if people want to credit regions or groups with authorship in the text of the proposal, so what? What's wrong with identifying regional communities or members of a group as authors of a proposal? I haven't seen a satisfactory answer so far in this thread.

With that said, Frisbeeteria's concerns about overly flowery language are legitimate, so I do think the Branding rule should prohibit that. The SC already seems to prohibit this as well, so I think that's a good model to follow:


In this area I'm not too concerned about the moderators having more discretion, so long as the rules provide examples of "safe" branding.

Similarly, I also think it is desirable to avoid having pre-titles in the resolution text, but I think that this should be accomplished by having [violet] disable all tags but the [nation] tag (and perhaps the [region] tag) in proposals, and to force the [nation] tag to appear as [nation=short] or [nation=short+noflag]. Eliminating the ability to break a rule is better than merely enforcing that rule. Better yet, [violet] should just add new co-author fields as suggested above.

Elke and Elba wrote:IIRC Bears Armed is St Edmund? I remember that particular resolution (forgot its name) where St Edmund is labelled as author, if my memory serves to be correct, and the submitter isn't the author but authorised to submit it.

Yes.
GA #20 'Suppress International Piracy'.
Mavenu wanted to try their hand at getting a proposal to quorum, they mentioned the fact in TSP's forum where I was also active (through my local puppet) at that time, and I had that old draft (originally a 'UN' one) that St Edmund -- which, if I remember correctly, had already left the WA -- didn't have any further plans for, so I let them use that.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:No reason that acknowledgement can't be made on the forum.

How about those half-halfs?

Bears Armed wrote:

Elke and Elba wrote:IIRC Bears Armed is St Edmund? I remember that particular resolution (forgot its name) where St Edmund is labelled as author, if my memory serves to be correct, and the submitter isn't the author but authorised to submit it.

Yes.
GA #20 'Suppress International Piracy'.
Mavenu wanted to try their hand at getting a proposal to quorum, they mentioned the fact in TSP's forum where I was also active (through my local puppet) at that time, and I had that old draft (originally a 'UN' one) that St Edmund -- which, if I remember correctly, had already left the WA -- didn't have any further plans for, so I let them use that.

I didn't know submitting proposals are fun. I hate it.

But I guess one man's poison is another man's meat.

I would actually prefer it if resolutions couldn't make mention of co-authors at all. The idea that an author should be able to list a dozen co-authors in the resolution and that they should all get badges seems to implicitly suggest that recognition and badges are what this game is about. If an author would like to make it known that they received significant assistance from another player, or several players, list it on the forum. That's the only place anyone really cares, anyway. Making a list of inspirations, editors, acknowledgements, etc. just places an even greater emphasis on passing resolutions to get recognition.

You don't get a badge for being a co-author. Furthermore, I don't see why it'd be unreasonable for people to receive some small form of recognition for your substantial work on a resolution, while the other bloke gets a badge and everything else.

Furthermore, if we ban branding altogether, we're going to be pursuing GA's reputation for having tighter, more complex rules than the SC (where there is no branding rule at all and the SC has operated fine without it).

Unibot III wrote:You don't get a badge for being a co-author.

Not now, but that could be something down the road. This would require, at the least, changing the code from GAR #326 (whatever it is) onwards, though.

This is looking like being the wrong crowd to advocate removing those damn buttons altogether to :(

Unibot III wrote:You don't get a badge for being a co-author. Furthermore, I don't see why it'd be unreasonable for people to receive some small form of recognition for your substantial work on a resolution, while the other bloke gets a badge and everything else.

Furthermore, if we ban branding altogether, we're going to be pursuing GA's reputation for having tighter, more complex rules than the SC (where there is no branding rule at all and the SC has operated fine without it).

I'm aware you don't get a badge for being a co-author, but that idea was just suggested. You also can't list a dozen co-authors, but seeing as the nature of this debate is hypothetical, I was addressing suggested changes.

But your point about co-authors receiving a small form of recognition: why? This game isn't about the WA recognizing who's important for writing or contributing to the most resolutions, it's about debating and passing legislation.

Regarding your second point: so? Frankly, I don't really care what goes on in the SC, and don't know why it should affect what goes on in the GA?

Sciongrad wrote:

Unibot III wrote:You don't get a badge for being a co-author. Furthermore, I don't see why it'd be unreasonable for people to receive some small form of recognition for your substantial work on a resolution, while the other bloke gets a badge and everything else.

Furthermore, if we ban branding altogether, we're going to be pursuing GA's reputation for having tighter, more complex rules than the SC (where there is no branding rule at all and the SC has operated fine without it).

I'm aware you don't get a badge for being a co-author, but that idea was just suggested. You also can't list a dozen co-authors, but seeing as the nature of this debate is hypothetical, I was addressing suggested changes.

But your point about co-authors receiving a small form of recognition: why? This game isn't about the WA recognizing who's important for writing or contributing to the most resolutions, it's about debating and passing legislation.

Regarding your second point: so? Frankly, I don't really care what goes on in the SC, and don't know why it should affect what goes on in the GA?

Well, real life parallels like the "Submitter: X Nation" "Co-Submitter: [INSERT LONG LIST]" format for resolutions I believe...

If anything, it's just following protocol. It's like why we use "UNDERSTANDING blah blah blah", "ACKNOWLEDGING blah blah blah" and the like.

Sciongrad wrote:But your point about co-authors receiving a small form of recognition: why? This game isn't about the WA recognizing who's important for writing or contributing to the most resolutions, it's about debating and passing legislation.

So you would advocate the abolition of the plagiarism rule too, yes?

Unibot III wrote:

Sciongrad wrote:But your point about co-authors receiving a small form of recognition: why? This game isn't about the WA recognizing who's important for writing or contributing to the most resolutions, it's about debating and passing legislation.

So you would advocate the abolition of the plagiarism rule too, yes?

No, I wouldn't. There is a difference between not acknowledging someone in the text of a resolution and plagiarizing their work. If someone is willing to claim that their work has been plagiarized simply because they didn't receive mention in the resolution, then I would argue that the current branding policy invites that kind of pettiness.

Bears Armed wrote:

The Dark Star Republic wrote:If that's on the table, nothing else is worth discussing.

Agreed. If all of our work is thrown out again,"to give new authors more opportunity", then I for one will be resigning from & subsequently ignoring the WA -- rather than trying to get my existing resolutions replaced -- to leave it for those new authors, and so there'd be no point in me commenting any further in these discussions

Let me put the final nail in this particular coffin. I tossed out a hand grenade, in the wrong place, at the wrong time, and entirely on my own. How about we ignore that little faux pas for the moment and get back to Branding.

The Dark Star Republic wrote:This is looking like being the wrong crowd to advocate removing those damn buttons altogether to

Not entirely. There are some players who are in this for the satisfaction of writing something relevant with some permanence. Many others seem to be in it only for the ego boost. The Branding rule was enacted to remove ego from the equation. The co-author rule was added back in as a sop to the ego-hungry in a later revision. I for one would be delighted to see all co-authors removed again, along with all the badges.

Frisbeeteria wrote:I for one would be delighted to see all co-authors removed again...

Yeah, let's just do that. I myself have co-authored several proposals, and never felt the need to be recognized in the text. Never really understood why some insist upon it. An accomplishment (even a co-accomplishment) in an online game is not a real accomplishment.

EDIT: though it is rather sad to see that something so pointless and trivial as co-author nods is generating the most debate in this summit so far. Who the fuck cares?

As nice as the badges are, I'd not much care if they were tossed out.

I'm definitely on board with ditching co-authors entirely. The circlejerks in the SC are bad enough. It would be really nice to get rid of the potential for pimping buddies. It would definitely clear up the issues surrounding Branding, I feel, as there would be one less potential spot to brand in.

I would suggest that, at the very least, branding rules should be the same in the GA and the SC for simplicities' sake. And I'd suggest either adopting the GA's current ruleset or just banning co-authors entirely. This circlejerking is really quite appalling. In fact, as a matter of policy I vote against any SC commendation that commends nations for having commended someone else. *foams at mouth*

I'll throw my weight behind getting rid of co-authors altogether. There's no reason why people shouldn't be satisfied with recognition on the forums unless they want their nation name listed for posterity in the passed resolutions. A lot of forum regulars, myself included, make all sorts of suggestions to authors, and when this are included, it is recorded for all time in the thread. We don't need this listing in the passed resolutions at all.

I agree as well that co-authors should be totally removed; if another player has made contributions to the text and feel they need recognition for it, they probably should write their own resolution instead.

That said, I would much prefer a coded box for one or two co-authors as an alternative, and more leeway on allowing regions to be listed. Legislative text should be used for legislation and nothing else.

Personally, the only real benefit I get from being listed as a co-author (or, really, more the author asking me if I want co-authorship) is the warm fuzzies from feeling like I was helpful and made a positive impact on their drafting. Heck, I remember one time when Urgench, I think it was, submitted a proposal that he had offered me co-authorship on and forgot to list me as a co-author. When he realized his error, he offered to pull the prop and re-campaign, but that was ridiculous, and I told him as much. (I think I still claim that resolution among my co-authoring efforts, though, if memory serves

Anyhow, I'm up for either having an "optional" Co-Author field on the proposal submission form or with getting rid of Co-Authors entirely ... or for the status quo, I suppose.

Elke and Elba wrote: I didn't know submitting proposals are fun. I hate it.

They were considering drafting a proposal of their own, and wanted to see whether they could handle this side of things okay before getting into that side of it.

Mousebumples wrote:Anyhow, I'm up for either having an "optional" Co-Author field on the proposal submission form or with getting rid of Co-Authors entirely ... or for the status quo, I suppose.

I had pondered something similar. The "optional" co-author field could accommodate up to two.