NationStates

Kuriko wrote:I plan on submitting this today at some point.

Looks like this just reached quorum. Good luck.

SherpDaWerp wrote:I challenge you to find an editor that was elevated prior to writing a commendable quantity of issues, and doesn't give any feedback.

Sanctaria. I think.

Bormiar wrote:

SherpDaWerp wrote:I challenge you to find an editor that was elevated prior to writing a commendable quantity of issues, and doesn't give any feedback.

Sanctaria. I think.

Great, but Sanctaria is already commended, so the point is moot.
I'll say it again: someone is commendable or not commendable and issues written as an editor very rarely if ever make that difference.

Aside from that, GL with the proposal!

SherpDaWerp wrote:

Bormiar wrote:Sanctaria. I think.

Great, but Sanctaria is already commended, so the point is moot.
I'll say it again: someone is commendable or not commendable and issues written as an editor very rarely if ever make that difference.

Aside from that, GL with the proposal!

So, therefore, Sanctaria is not commendable, because the issues in the commend were written while he was an editor iirc. We have repeals for this sort of thing.

Bormiar wrote:

SherpDaWerp wrote:Great, but Sanctaria is already commended, so the point is moot.
I'll say it again: someone is commendable or not commendable and issues written as an editor very rarely if ever make that difference.

Aside from that, GL with the proposal!

So, therefore, Sanctaria is not commendable, because the issues in the commend were written while he was an editor iirc. We have repeals for this sort of thing.

Pretty sure you're right - Sanctaria's first written issue was a submission to an Issues Contest, for which they were given an Editor role. Two issues they wrote were published after the Contest finished but before they were made an Editor, so there's a bit of a grey area, but it's more likely that it would be ruled Illegal than Legal.

That said, Sanctaria's commend was primarily for region-building and GA work, not Issues. They are commendable without going into their issues-written-as-editor, because in their commend Issues are barely mentioned - they only get one sentence.

Also, while Sanctaria's commend would be illegal nowadays, I'm pretty sure it's been ruled that you can't argue to repeal a C/C by saying "the rules have changed, this would be illegal now".

SherpDaWerp wrote:snip

Whatever you're saying now is completely irrelevant and distracting to the fact that you're completely wrong here:

SherpDaWerp wrote:I challenge you to find an editor that was elevated prior to writing a commendable quantity of issues, and doesn't give any feedback (see Commend Trotterdam - giving GI feedback can be part of a Commend). Every Editor is commendable without going into their issues written while part of Staff, so why bother? There's zero use-case for commending Editorial actions, because if you want to commend an editor, you can commend their prior body of work without too much trouble.

The Marsupial used himself as an example. There are lots others. And then you moved the goalpost:

SherpDaWerp wrote:But do you want a Commend, are you worthy of a Commend, and/or are people drafting you a Commend? With all due respect, personally the lack of significant interaction with the community (at least in my short memory of GI) would limit your commend-ability anyway.

Some people become commendable for issues after being made an editor. Even if you want to try and shoot down every example (even the ones brought up by the editor themself), it's clear that it's possible -- and probable -- for players to become commendable for issues after being made an IE, because of contests. Therefore, a commendation is actually a greater award than the IE badge is, if you consider the IE badge to be an award.

Bormiar wrote:

SherpDaWerp wrote:snip

Whatever you're saying now is completely irrelevant and distracting to the fact that you're completely wrong here:

gah, I gotta say, this is the most annoying point I've ever made... it's becoming quite a headache. Debating isn't my jam.

BUT, I stand by my argument that Rule 1 is fine as-is. Hopefully these points articulate my reasoning in enough detail that my meaning is evident (though it should have been already).

1. People who have contributed enough to GI to become Editors tend to be (there, happy?) commendable regardless of any issues written as an editor.
   • Sedgistan - Was commended in the past for GP/SC, got repealed due to more GP, you get the point. They don't need to rely on editor-written issues to get the badge.
   • Luna Amore - already commended for their GP/region-building work.
   • Ransium - already commended for region-building, SC, GA and Issues.
   • Zwangzug - already commended for NS Sports and Issues
   • Sanctaria - already commended for region-building, GA, and some issues (let's be honest - the commend doesn't really need the issues, so we can pass over the fact that it would break rules today)
   • CWA - already commended for Issues with quite a bit of wink-wink-nudge-nudge
   • Helaw - already commended (like Ransium) for region-building, SC, GA, and issues.
   The few that are missing from the already-C/C'd list are USS Monitor, The Free Joy State, Pogaria, Gnejs, Caracasus and The Marsupial Illuminati. This is less than half of the active Editing team, so I'd say editors are more likely to be commendable than not. As far as those 6 go:
   • The Free Joy State - wrote 2 issues prior to their first edit. This could probably be spun similarly to CWA's Commend, with a bit of wink-wink nudge-nudge
   • USS Monitor - wrote 6 issues prior to their first edit. This is probably a commendable quantity given feedback and community involvement, which, while they don't have an incredible amount, they probably have enough
   • Caracasus - wrote 3 issues prior to their first edit, plus a GA resolution.
   This cuts it down to pretty much just Pogaria, Gnejs and TMI who would absolutely require explicit issues-written-as-editor credits to have a passable Commend. That's under a quarter of the active team - approximately 23% - and so I'd say it pretty definitively proves a "tendency" that Editors are commendable regardless of any issues written during their tenure.
   
2. If any Editor really wants to get a Commend, they have other avenues (within GI) to do so. Feedback is commendable. Maybe not on it's own, but if Editor X has given hella feedback as well as issues, people here are mostly bright enough to realise that only talking about feedback is a R1 dodge, rather than just a bad nominee. For an example, see CWA's Commend, which explicitly mentions only 3 Issues yet still passed because everyone knew that CWA did more, it just couldn't be mentioned.
3. Editors do have inside knowledge. They might not use it, it might not be useful, they might still just write issues for fun. But they still have inside knowledge. They can still see that their issue was deleted from the pool and take action to salvage it. That's knowledge they have over every other Author out there, which does make it ever-so-slightly easier to get an issue published.
4. Editors do issues. That's their job. They have been given a position on Staff because they are good at Issues, so commending them for issues is somewhat unnecessary.

"But if you're relying on dodging R1 for some commends, then what's the point? Surely you could just not do R1 instead!"
Yeah, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. It's better to have R1 for its other aspects, and have the community acknowledge that some people are worth an R1-dodging wink-wink-nudge-nudge badge because of their important contributions.

The IE Badge is still a Badge. It's still an award. It's still people in charge saying "you're so good at this, we're giving you power over how it gets done in the future". Getting that badge is recognition of contribution to GI and the community, so only people who go above and beyond in that role (or, have contributions to the site outside that role) should get the additional badge of a Commend.

I don't think I'm breaking any team secrets here by revealing this one process, but I think it would be helpful to show that we do have an in-built advantage when authoring issues that normal authors don't have - there seems to be a lot of back and forth on this issue, and I think it's mainly due to a lack of transparency.

SherpDaWerp wrote:They can still see that their issue was deleted from the pool and take action to salvage it.

When an Editor writes an issue, it goes into a special pile. Before that issue be deleted for whatever reason - overlap, poor writing, etc - the other Editors have to discuss and, basically, vote before it can be deleted. Even then, the editor can decide to do a self-edit (provided other internal processes and rules are adhered to) and work on that issue anyway. Now to be clear, the end product still needs to be approved by a sizable number of other Editors before it can go in-game, but that process still exists for an Editor who writes an issue.

When an author writes an issue and an Editor - it just takes one - doesn't like, it can be deleted. The author doesn't know, can't defend their issue, can't decided to self-edit or improve it, nada. It gets deleted. Another Editor may come along and browse the deleted pile and decide "hey I like that, I can salvage it", but it's rare that an Editor does this.

Our internal processes give us an inherent advantage when writing issues while being an Editor, so I think it's only right we can't be commended for issues we happen to write as Editors.

Apologies if this had already been made clear, I don't read often in this forum.

Also, since I was brought up, my commend would be hella illegal today because the issues I wrote I wrote while I was an editor, but as others pointed out, the commend focused more on the GA and region-building. Also yes, I don't give feedback. I'm so unhelpful

Looking at that list of issues reminds me there are several I've still never gotten, including one I've desperately been trying to get for years (that 'sun don't shine' one). I wonder what gives... I'm sure they're wonderful issues, but I'll have to take that on faith

I don't mean to be rude but there are more important things than commending/condemning people.

Urduvan Sultanate wrote:I don't mean to be rude but there are more important things than commending/condemning people.

So go play somewhere else.

Urduvan Sultanate wrote:I don't mean to be rude but there are more important things than commending/condemning people.

There aren't really any more important things for the SC at this point in time. There's no big raids requiring a liberation, so C&Cs are the perfect thing (and only other thing) to vote on.

SherpDaWerp wrote:

• The Free Joy State - wrote 2 issues prior to their first edit. This could probably be spun similarly to CWA's Commend, with a bit of wink-wink nudge-nudge
• USS Monitor - wrote 6 issues prior to their first edit. This is probably a commendable quantity given feedback and community involvement, which, while they don't have an incredible amount, they probably have enough
• Caracasus - wrote 3 issues prior to their first edit, plus a GA resolution.

That's an interesting one, as all of Monitor's issues came after they were modded. Will they count? Mods might have access to the editing forum/inner workings/cabal, so it might be argued they have a upper hand. I don't know, maybe someone can clarify? Are normal mods' issues eligible?

An extremely deserved commendation. Happily approved!

Honeydewistania wrote:That's an interesting one, as all of Monitor's issues came after they were modded. Will they count? Mods might have access to the editing forum/inner workings/cabal, so it might be argued they have a upper hand. I don't know, maybe someone can clarify? Are normal mods' issues eligible?

Mods have full access to everything Issues Editors do, so no.

Congratulations, FuF!