The Branding Rule

[Kaboomlandia]

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.

And maybe it could just tack it on to the end of the resolution, kind of like we do now?
I mean, the system already autofills that first part when you try to repeal something, so it could just be the same thing, but on the end.

[Sciongrad]

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.

Why add more? I'm not even sure why there's an option to list one, frankly.

[Unibot III]

There is a difference between not acknowledging someone in the text of a resolution and plagiarizing their work

There is literally no difference here between those two scenarios.

I know of at least two resolutions where I was noted as 'co-author' - but in fact, I wrote the entire thing back to front - every single word. I offered the resolution text because I was too busy to campaign, but I would have been upset if I had lost complete control over the resolution once I handed the text over - with the 'co-author' system, I still could pull the resolution from the queue if I noticed something new was wrong with it.

It's incredible to me how some of you folks here are so upset over two people being included (shock and horror) at the bottom of a resolution as co-authors. You think it's ridiculous that people care about being recognized for their work on the text of their work, I think it's ridiculous that you care so much as to deliberately take that away from people.

[Snefaldia]

There is a difference between not acknowledging someone in the text of a resolution and plagiarizing their work

There is literally no difference here between those two scenarios.

I know of at least two resolutions where I was noted as 'co-author' - but in fact, I wrote the entire thing back to front - every single word. I offered the resolution text because I was too busy to campaign, but I would have been upset if I had lost complete control over the resolution once I handed the text over - with the 'co-author' system, I still could pull the resolution from the queue if I noticed something new was wrong with it.

It's incredible to me how some of you folks here are so upset over two people being included (shock and horror) at the bottom of a resolution as co-authors. You think it's ridiculous that people care about being recognized for their work on the text of their work, I think it's ridiculous that you care so much as to deliberately take that away from people.

And I think it's ridiculous that you're conflating outright stealing someone's work with making legitimate, permissable use of that work. In the situation you just outlined, you willingly gave you work to someone else to use, and you're unhappy you can't benefit from their campaigning. Yes, you created something. Then you gave that stuff away, willingly.

I also think that no one is upset here except you.

[Unibot III]

And I think it's ridiculous that you're conflating outright stealing someone's work with making legitimate, permissable use of that work. In the situation you just outlined, you willingly gave you work to someone else to use, and you're unhappy you can't benefit from their campaigning. Yes, you created something. Then you gave that stuff away, willingly.

I also think that no one is upset here except you.

No, I'd be upset if I found a mistake with a text and the person I gave the text to, refused to withdraw it from the queue (that also happened) and the moderators wouldn't remove the text from the queue for me. This would occur if people passed texts to others without co-authorship - you'd lose full creative control over things you wrote or partially wrote and have no alternative. Under our current system, I can maintain some creative control over texts that I co-author.

Despite the fact that WA Authoring is usually collaborative. Treating it as a solely solitary practice is ridiculous.

[Sciongrad]

There is literally no difference here between those two scenarios.

Plagiarism, in the context of the game, suggests that work has been used without permission. Deciding not to cite a willing contributor is not plagiarism. If someone contributes to your draft, they're willingly giving you their ideas. If their willingness to contribute to a resolution is contingent on getting some form of recognition, then that's an attitude we should actively try and eliminate.

I know of at least two resolutions where I was noted as 'co-author' - but in fact, I wrote the entire thing back to front - every single word. I offered the resolution text because I was too busy to campaign, but I would have been upset if I had lost complete control over the resolution once I handed the text over - with the 'co-author' system, I still could pull the resolution from the queue if I noticed something new was wrong with it.

Being too busy to campaign may have been a legitimate reason to have someone else propose your work on your behalf in the past, but that isn't a realistic concern in the modern WA. A VHS copy of Thelma and Louise could get a resolution to vote using a script or stamps.

It's incredible to me how some of you folks here are so upset over two people being included (shock and horror) at the bottom of a resolution as co-authors. You think it's ridiculous that people care about being recognized for their work on the text of their work, I think it's ridiculous that you care so much as to deliberately take that away from people.

No one is shocked or horrified. I think it's safe to say that most people that are arguing against expanding the branding rule are doing so because the function doesn't serve any valuable purpose besides inflating egos. The only people that may even care remotely about co-authors are found on the forum, so if you really want to recognize your inspirations or editors or whatever, do so here. Listing co-authors in the text of the resolutions has no meaningful purpose, and crying about how we're depriving someone of recognition is not a persuasive argument against how co-authorships cause people to put too much emphasis on "glory."

EDIT: I'm also pretty sure a VHS copy of Thelma and Louise typed this post too... Removed all the typos.

[Snefaldia]

And I think it's ridiculous that you're conflating outright stealing someone's work with making legitimate, permissable use of that work. In the situation you just outlined, you willingly gave you work to someone else to use, and you're unhappy you can't benefit from their campaigning. Yes, you created something. Then you gave that stuff away, willingly.

I also think that no one is upset here except you.

No, I'd be upset if I found a mistake with a text and the person I gave the text to, refused to withdraw it from the queue (that also happened) and the moderators wouldn't remove the text from the queue for me. This would occur if people passed texts to others without co-authorship - you'd lose full creative control over things you wrote or partially wrote and have no alternative. Under our current system, I can maintain some creative control over texts that I co-author.

Despite the fact that WA Authoring is usually collaborative. Treating it as a solely solitary practice is ridiculous.

the situation you described is actionable if you can prove you wrote it; besides, if you don't trust the people you're writing with then why are you worried about co-author titles? It's not supposed to be an executive veto. If you want control over your own work, submit it on your own.

[Unibot III]

Plagiarism, in the context of the game, suggests that work has been used without permission. Deciding not to cite a willing contributor is not plagiarism. If they're only willingness to contribute to a resolution is contingent on getting some form of recognition, then that's an attitude we should actively try and eliminate.

That's not how plagiarism works. You can't magically wave off the fact someone wrote a proposal for you.

Furthermore, the attitude we need to eliminate is your attitude that it's shameful to be proud of your work - it's an attitude I hated from fellow authors - we should encourage new players to take pride in all of their work, not dance around the issue of recognition meekly as if they didn't put any work into it. You should passionately love a text by the end of working on it when it's being submitted and putting your name on it is a part of that ritual of submission.

If I worked on something and I was proud of the result, you can damn well believe that I'd want to put my name on it. From signing your artwork, to putting your name on a byline - owning a work is an essential part of the creative process for many people and I've always been pissed off at the popular attitude of some authors here that that only amounts to 'notches on a belt' or whatever.

Being too busy to campaign may have been a legitimate reason to have someone else propose your work on your behalf, but that isn't a realistic concern in the modern WA. A VHS copy of Thelma and Louise could get a resolution to vote using a script or stamps.

A script I don't have, and stamps I might not be able to afford. In fact a lot of players are younger - I never had a credit card or a paypal account until I was much older. I'm sure my fifteen year old self, if he were still a WAer nowadays would be manually campaigning just as he always did.

No one is shocked or horrified. I think it's safe to say that most people that are arguing against expanding the branding rule are doing so because the function doesn't serve any valuable purpose besides inflating egos. The only people that may even care remotely about co-authors are found on the forum, so if you really want to recognize your inspirations or editors or whatever, do so here. Listing co-authors in the text of the resolutions has no meaningful purpose, and crying about how we're depriving someone of recognition is not a persuasive argument against how co-authorships cause people to put too much emphasis on "glory."

On the contrary, the people on the forums are the people who care the least about co-authors, are already aware of who effectively co-authored proposals and who nobody on the forums particularly likes (at least the Snakepit I remember - I certainly never cared what Knootoss thought ever really).

Recogonising an author in a body's text is a recognition for their work. If you want to get rid of 'recognition' - call for authors to be removed entirely from the resolution - but co-authors can often deserve just as much recognition as authors and deserve that recognition as an act of fairness, not as an act of 'ego inflation' or whatever bullshit you're going to try to spin it as.

No, I'd be upset if I found a mistake with a text and the person I gave the text to, refused to withdraw it from the queue (that also happened) and the moderators wouldn't remove the text from the queue for me. This would occur if people passed texts to others without co-authorship - you'd lose full creative control over things you wrote or partially wrote and have no alternative. Under our current system, I can maintain some creative control over texts that I co-author.

Despite the fact that WA Authoring is usually collaborative. Treating it as a solely solitary practice is ridiculous.

the situation you described is actionable if you can prove you wrote it; besides, if you don't trust the people you're writing with then why are you worried about co-author titles? It's not supposed to be an executive veto. If you want control over your own work, submit it on your own.

I wouldn't have wanted to have gotten by best friend in NS swamped with a plagiarism charge over a disagreement, I just wanted the damn resolution pulled - and co-authorship is an executive veto.

[Sciongrad]

That's not how plagiarism works. You can't magically wave off the fact someone wrote a proposal for you.

If someone wrote the entire text themselves, then they can submit it themselves. If someone willingly gave you their ideas without the expectation of a plug in the text of the resolution, then that is not plagiarism according to the game, regardless of how you view it.

Furthermore, the attitude we need to eliminate is your attitude that it's shameful to be proud of your work - it's an attitude I hated from fellow authors - we should encourage new players to take pride in all of their work, not dance around the issue of recognition meekly as if they didn't put any work into it. You should passionately love a text by the end of working on it when it's being submitted and putting your name on it is a part of that ritual of submission.

If I worked on something and I was proud of the result, you can damn well believe that I'd want to put my name on it. From signing your artwork, to putting your name on a byline - owning a work is an essential part of the creative process for many people and I've always been pissed off at the popular attitude of some authors here that that only amounts to 'notches on a belt' or whatever.

I'm sorry that no one else can appreciate the white hot passion you seem to experience from getting a co-authorship tag. Unfortunately, I think it can safely be said that you're on your own in viewing WA resolutions as pieces of art that require your signature. The point of this game is to roleplay a fictional world shaped by our legislation, not to get recognition for writing resolutions. I don't think anyone that participates in this part of the game really cares about getting recognition either.

Being too busy to campaign may have been a legitimate reason to have someone else propose your work on your behalf, but that isn't a realistic concern in the modern WA. A VHS copy of Thelma and Louise could get a resolution to vote using a script or stamps.

I took me - and I'm not exaggerating - two minutes to download Auralia's free automated TG script. If you enjoy campaigning manually, sure, that's perfectly acceptable. But the widespread availability and accessibility of TG scripts makes it sort of ridiculous to say that you don't have time to campaign because campaigning doesn't take any time at all.

On the contrary, the people on the forums are the people who care the least about co-authors, are already aware of who effectively co-authored proposals and who nobody on the forums particularly likes (at least the Snakepit I remember - I certainly never cared what Knootoss thought ever really).

If you think that the forum regulars don't care about co-authors, why on earth would the general voters? Frankly, I don't think anyone cares.

Recogonising an author in a body's text is a recognition for their work. If you want to get rid of 'recognition' - call for authors to be removed entirely from the resolution - but co-authors can often deserve just as much recognition as authors and deserve that recognition as an act of fairness, not as an act of 'ego inflation' or whatever bullshit you're going to try to spin it as.

I wouldn't be opposed to eliminating badges.

[Snefaldia]

And now we return to another issue with co-authorship; if there is more than one, the mods could get bogged down in political bickering over pulling resolutions if one out of four suddenly changes their mind.

[Kaboomlandia]

And now we return to another issue with co-authorship; if there is more than one, the mods could get bogged down in political bickering over pulling resolutions if one out of four suddenly changes their mind.

Maybe there could be a system with if there's more than one co-author, on-demand yanking of the proposal requires approval of two nations, including the submitter.

[Snefaldia]

And now we return to another issue with co-authorship; if there is more than one, the mods could get bogged down in political bickering over pulling resolutions if one out of four suddenly changes their mind.

Maybe there could be a system with if there's more than one co-author, on-demand yanking of the proposal requires approval of two nations, including the submitter.

Why introduce more complexity ?

[Frisbeeteria]

One of the problems with co-authors is that the submitter can add someone else to the proposal without their knowledge or permission. Adding a "co-author approval" button is far too complex for the size of the problem, but it's happened at least once or twice. The author made changes after the co-author had signed off on the forum thread, and the co-author wasn't happy with the finished product. In at least one of those instances, the proposal was removed at the co-author's request. Adding more co-authors would just expand that problem.

Maybe there could be a system with if there's more than one co-author, on-demand yanking of the proposal requires approval of two nations, including the submitter.

Why introduce more complexity ?

It's something he does. Just ignore it.

[Flibbleites]

Plagiarism, in the context of the game, suggests that work has been used without permission. Deciding not to cite a willing contributor is not plagiarism. If they're only willingness to contribute to a resolution is contingent on getting some form of recognition, then that's an attitude we should actively try and eliminate.

That's not how plagiarism works. You can't magically wave off the fact someone wrote a proposal for you.

Furthermore, the attitude we need to eliminate is your attitude that it's shameful to be proud of your work - it's an attitude I hated from fellow authors - we should encourage new players to take pride in all of their work, not dance around the issue of recognition meekly as if they didn't put any work into it. You should passionately love a text by the end of working on it when it's being submitted and putting your name on it is a part of that ritual of submission.

If I worked on something and I was proud of the result, you can damn well believe that I'd want to put my name on it. From signing your artwork, to putting your name on a byline - owning a work is an essential part of the creative process for many people and I've always been pissed off at the popular attitude of some authors here that that only amounts to 'notches on a belt' or whatever.

Just because you feel the need to have your name plastered all over everything you touch, doesn't mean everyone else is going to feel the same way. There are resolutions out there that I've contributed to, that don't have my name on them and it doesn't bother me in the slightest despite how you feel about it.

[Sedgistan]

One of the problems with co-authors is that the submitter can add someone else to the proposal without their knowledge or permission. Adding a "co-author approval" button is far too complex for the size of the problem, but it's happened at least once or twice. The author made changes after the co-author had signed off on the forum thread, and the co-author wasn't happy with the finished product. In at least one of those instances, the proposal was removed at the co-author's request. Adding more co-authors would just expand that problem.

If that were likely to be a big problem, you'd expect it to crop up in the SC regularly (since there are plenty of GP reasons to pull those sorts of shenanigans) - yet we've only had a couple of requests from co-authors to remove proposals over the last few years.

I'm with Unibot on branding. This is a fun, silly, satirical game, not the real world. We're here to enjoy ourselves, and if someone likes being recognised for contributing to a proposal, what's the problem with them getting credit for it? A couple of co-authors doesn't harm anyone else's playing experience.

[The Dark Star Republic]

I'm with Unibot on branding. This is a fun, silly, satirical game, not the real world. We're here to enjoy ourselves, and if someone likes being recognised for contributing to a proposal, what's the problem with them getting credit for it? A couple of co-authors doesn't harm anyone else's playing experience.

But no one is suggesting credit not be given. The only argument is over where that credit is given: in the text of the resolution, or not (either in some separate coauthor field, or simply on the forum/dispatch/regional forum/NSwiki/RMB/etc.).

You can argue back and forth about credit all you like, but the point of the Branding rule goes back to that "golden rule" I first mentioned: WA resolutions are meant to be international law, not laundry lists of acknowledgement. The Little Treaty of Versailles doesn't have "thanks france xoxo" inserted in between the articles on national self-determination.

[Sedgistan]

The Little Treaty of Versailles doesn't have "thanks france xoxo" inserted in between the articles on national self-determination.

No, but it does have a long list of the people that contributed to it after the pre-amble.

[The Dark Star Republic]

The Little Treaty of Versailles doesn't have "thanks france xoxo" inserted in between the articles on national self-determination.

No, but it does have a long list of the people that contributed to it after the pre-amble.

None of which would be allowed to remain even with the Branding rules, as mentioning individual characters is still not allowed.

[Sedgistan]

I know - I was pointing out that even RL international treaties have a significant amount of branding, so if we're trying to mimic RL international law, banning all branding is actually counter-productive.

[Snefaldia]

I know - I was pointing out that even RL international treaties have a significant amount of branding, so if we're trying to mimic RL international law, banning all branding is actually counter-productive.

But we're not actually trying to mimic international law; we're trying to develop an international legal system for the game, with references to real-world standards where those are appropriate. The WA doesn't have signatories to treaties, there are no summits or conferences, and the character limit puts restrictions on what can reasonably be achieved in a single resolution. DSR's point (I think) was that law focuses on law, not on thanking the states involved in making it; signatures and acknowledgements are a formal peculiarity of no major importance to the operative value of the text.

[Elke and Elba]

I know - I was pointing out that even RL international treaties have a significant amount of branding, so if we're trying to mimic RL international law, banning all branding is actually counter-productive.

But we're not actually trying to mimic international law; we're trying to develop an international legal system for the game, with references to real-world standards where those are appropriate. The WA doesn't have signatories to treaties, there are no summits or conferences, and the character limit puts restrictions on what can reasonably be achieved in a single resolution. DSR's point (I think) was that law focuses on law, not on thanking the states involved in making it; signatures and acknowledgements are a formal peculiarity of no major importance to the operative value of the text.

...

And how is the idea that one single nation can conceivably write an entire resolution that is agreeable to a large portion of the world even realistic in the first place?

[Snefaldia]

...

And how is the idea that one single nation can conceivably write an entire resolution that is agreeable to a large portion of the world even realistic in the first place?

Because it isn't? I don't understand your point. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

[The Dark Star Republic]

DSR's point (I think) was that law focuses on law, not on thanking the states involved in making it

Yes, it was; unfortunately I was rather stupid in choosing a terrible example that Sedgistan duly seized on.

So let's just change example to something that's more of an obvious parallel anyway, given WA resolutions aren't treaties. The WA is similar, though not identical, to the UN, which passes "General Assembly Resolutions" on such deeply important subjects as the International Day of Yoga.

If you read the notes on the session you can find out all about who sponsored - and, yes, co-sponsored - the resolution; this is the equivalent of the forum debate thread. But if you just read the resolution text, then you won't see any mention of who sponsored it.

What we're discussing is what goes in the resolution text. What goes in the forum/dispatch/NSwiki article/some other gameside field added for this purpose/anything else is a separate issue.

[Snefaldia]

...

And how is the idea that one single nation can conceivably write an entire resolution that is agreeable to a large portion of the world even realistic in the first place?

Because it isn't? I don't understand your point. I'm not suggesting otherwise.

I thought about this again and I think I misunderstood your point; a single nation (player) crafts legislation and then it's voted on after enough WA Delegates decide it's worth the WA's time. If it passes, it is de facto agreeable to a large portion of the in-game world.

My point about not mimicking international law was perhaps poorly worded; while we are "mimicking" international law, we're not duplicating it; we're constrained by the game itself when in reality there are no such constraints.

I think Gruen and I agree here, though, that what belongs in the resolution text is only the law; and I'm not particularly persuaded by comparisons to the Security Council and any problems it does or doesn't have with regard to branding because we're dealing with an entire different set of things that goes into the text box.

[Tzorsland]

I was originally of the mind to eliminate the rule. Now I think we should eliminate co-authors entirely. The potential problems from co-authors are just not worth the hassle.