Granting the WA authorship badge to co-authors

[Auralia]

...seems only fair, and would be relatively easy to implement - the admins would just have to manually add the badge to a nation's page every so often.

EDIT: Alternatively, a special co-author field could be added to resolutions.

[AS22]

I vote no.

If you want the badge, be the one to put it up.

[Auralia]

I vote no.

If you want the badge, be the one to put it up.

Doesn't that defeat the point of co-authorship?

[AS22]

I vote no.

If you want the badge, be the one to put it up.

Doesn't that defeat the point of co-authorship?

No. Co-authors existed long before the badges even existed, they have nothing to with the badges and rightly so.

[The Republic of Lanos]

Sure why not though with this as a kicker: Why not add a separate field on the proposal to add co-authors? That way, they could be automatically honored minus the admins adding in the field themselves when one passes.

[Auralia]

Doesn't that defeat the point of co-authorship?

No. Co-authors existed long before the badges even existed, they have nothing to with the badges and rightly so.

That doesn't make any sense. So what if the notion of co-authorship existed before the badges?

The WA authorship badge should be granted to any nation which has authored a WA resolution. Co-authors should receive equal credit for authoring a WA resolution, and so they should both get the badge. It seems very simple to me.

Sure why not though with this as a kicker: Why not add a separate field on the proposal to add co-authors? That way, they could be automatically honored minus the admins adding in the field themselves when one passes.

I like it. It might not be a bad idea to amend past resolutions to make use of the new feature as well. There would need to be a mechanism to verify the consent of the co-author, though.

[Frisbeeteria]

There was a long and drawn out argument back in 2005-6 about whether co-authors should be allowed or not. The mods gave in and allowed them in the text after much pro and con from players, but it was never intended to be official recognition. If admins wanted co-authors, they'd have included a field in the submission form. They didn't. The person getting the credit is the WA member with two endorsements, and no one else.

the admins would just have to manually add the badge to a nation's page every so often.

No. The admins don't do a thing with routine activty. The mods would have to do this. While the GA only does about 1 in 5, the SC permits multiple co-authors. All this would do is encourage players to toss a co-author (or three) into every proposal, and provide work for the mods. Our current system is automatic, and that's how it ought to remain.

Why not add a separate field on the proposal to add co-authors? That way, they could be automatically honored minus the admins adding in the field themselves when one passes.

I like it. It might not be a bad idea to amend past resolutions to make use of the new feature as well. There would need to be a mechanism to verify the consent of the co-author, though.

Adding a new field (which would indeed require consent) would add a totally unnecessary complication to the proposal process. As it currently stands, your nation can act only for your nation, unless you have Delegate or Founder powers. Adding something collaborative on the creative side is a major departure for NS, and this suggestion is just too minor to provoke that level of effort.

[Auralia]

It seems that it was never intended that co-authors receive equal recognition for their contributions to a proposal. I agree that the lack of official recognition (through badges, etc.) is consistent with this position.

However, I think that this is a mistake. The reality is that proposals can have multiple authors, and all authors deserve recognition for their work. Adding a co-authors field should not be considered a "totally unnecessary complication to the proposal process".

[Glen-Rhodes]

If admins wanted co-authors, they'd have included a field in the submission form. They didn't. The person getting the credit is the WA member with two endorsements, and no one else.

It's a relatively simple thing to add. I'd imagine they didn't include it simply because they never thought about it, rather than because they explicitly did not want co-authorship to be a common practice. After all, there are many things we didn't have 5 years ago that we now have today, things that would have been good ideas back then, but just weren't included for whatever reasons. Also, saying that a co-authorship field would make this complicated is really underestimating the intelligence of the average human being...

I say, why not? Co-authorship is a common practice, and making it an actual field would save a handful of precious characters.

[Frisbeeteria]

Adding a co-authors field should not be considered a "totally unnecessary complication to the proposal process".

You're not thinking this through. Yes, adding a co-author field is easy, but that assumes that the co-author is willing to be added. I've seen utter crap proposals where the author offered co-author credit to some random contributor in-thread, when in fact that nation might abhor everything the proposal stands for, but is just offering grammar advice out of principle.

Nowhere else in the game (except endorsements and WA votes) can you do something on behalf of another nation. If we want to do this properly, the co-author would need to sign off on the proposal, which is where it gets complicated. Instead of a relatively simple proposal queue, we now have a duplicate 'holding queue' and some sort of verification method.

Alternately, the mods police the proposal queue and remove proposals at the request of either the author or co-author. I know we've done that at least once, and there was much moaning and gnashing of teeth. Either way, there are downsides that you aren't considering.

[Firstaria]

I agree with Frisbeeteria. What decides a co-author, the author? Then he could add every single guy who posted in the thread and bam, lots of work for the admins.

It's not a category that can be defined in technical terms except with a lot of useless moderation and admin work. Right now, I don't think they need that work for a badge.

[Auralia]

Alternately, the mods police the proposal queue and remove proposals at the request of either the author or co-author.

Actually, I'm a little confused as to why this is an issue. Nations can already submit proposals with co-authors listed in the proposal text, even without the consent of the co-author. The proposal would then have to be manually removed by the mods. How would a dedicated co-author field result in any additional work?

I agree with Frisbeeteria. What decides a co-author, the author? Then he could add every single guy who posted in the thread and bam, lots of work for the admins.

It would be very easy to limit the number of co-authors.

[Mousebumples]

I agree with Frisbeeteria. What decides a co-author, the author? Then he could add every single guy who posted in the thread and bam, lots of work for the admins.

It would be very easy to limit the number of co-authors.

That would involved changing the SC rules (or implementing different coding in each chamber), which seems ... unlikely.

I believe the mods have said previously that Max didn't want as many rules in the SC - and a limit on the number of co-authors is definitely another rule.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If we want to do this properly, the co-author would need to sign off on the proposal, which is where it gets complicated. Instead of a relatively simple proposal queue, we now have a duplicate 'holding queue' and some sort of verification method.

The complexity of that system is being waaayyy exaggerated. As a developer, I would never write a co-author system that required a "holding queue." The simplest way to go about it is basically how Facebook handles picture tagging. You can "tag" a co-author. If they approve, they get listed. If they don't, then they don't get listed. Either way, the proposal goes to the floor or falls of the list as it normally would. That's not really complicated at all.

Actually, I'm a little confused as to why this is an issue. Nations can already submit proposals with co-authors listed in the proposal text, even without the consent of the co-author. The proposal would then have to be manually removed by the mods. How would a dedicated co-author field result in any additional work?

If anything, separating the co-author list from the text would make it easier. If a co-author doesn't want to be listed, they could just remove themselves. Mods wouldn't have to do anything.

I believe the mods have said previously that Max didn't want as many rules in the SC - and a limit on the number of co-authors is definitely another rule.

Given that the proposal submission page is already altered based on which council you select, a limited and unlimited co-author field based on the same would be trivial to code. Or, there's nothing really stopping us from conforming the GA co-author rule to the SC one. Don't know why it's being assumed that the SC would have to conform the GA's co-author rule.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Alternately, the mods police the proposal queue and remove proposals at the request of either the author or co-author.

Actually, I'm a little confused as to why this is an issue. Nations can already submit proposals with co-authors listed in the proposal text, even without the consent of the co-author. The proposal would then have to be manually removed by the mods. How would a dedicated co-author field result in any additional work?

If something is already a problem, you don't want to encourage it with admin tools. Policing the queue for improperly added co-authors is already an issue for mods; don't you think an in-game prompt to automatically add a co-author would multiply the problem...especially among newbies who don't necessarily understand how complicated GA rules are?

[Unibot III]

I think an automated Co-author system would be the best, it's simplest because the GA is very specific on how it wants Co-authors shown (Must be an active nation, Short-form, can only use "Co-authored by"). I also think the GA and SC systems should be harmonized, for a 3 co-author limit. Three co-authors is more realistic than a one co-author limit, but beyond three co-authors, you're stretching the truth in most cases.

EDIT: I think in the GA, it's very common to have triad writing groups (I'm thinking like Yelda-Quod-(?), Uni-GR-CR,), but in the SC it's more likely to have more people involved in the creation of the resolution because you usually have a researcher with more experience in the area you're discussing (e.g., R/D); I would point to Liberate LotL-II as a good example of a four-author team. Therefore I set the harmonized limit at the high bar.

I don't believe Fris is correct, I think this would reduce the workload of moderators, because you wouldn't have to worry about any procedural problems regarding co-authorship notation, except false co-authorships which is something that you already have to worry about. I'm one of the few people in the game to have been successfully notated as a co-author when I didn't actually support the submission of the resolution -- I view this as my responsibility to have gone to the mods and tell them I didn't support it, ultimately I didn't think it was fair to G-R to pull his resolution when he had accidentally submitted it with an older draft that still used my name on it (while drafting I had withdrawn my support for the resolution). Incidentally, this scenario would be obsolete with an automated system since G-R would have to fill in my name again as Co-author.

EDIT: Although, G-R's tagging system without a holding queue sounds easy and preferable.

[Auralia]

Actually, I'm a little confused as to why this is an issue. Nations can already submit proposals with co-authors listed in the proposal text, even without the consent of the co-author. The proposal would then have to be manually removed by the mods. How would a dedicated co-author field result in any additional work?

If something is already a problem, you don't want to encourage it with admin tools. Policing the queue for improperly added co-authors is already an issue for mods; don't you think an in-game prompt to automatically add a co-author would multiply the problem...especially among newbies who don't necessarily understand how complicated GA rules are?

Would it, though? I doubt that too many newbies would fill in the co-author simply because it was there, particularly if there was a warning that consent from the co-author was required.

Regardless, if we implemented GR's proposed co-author tagging system, the issue would be rendered moot.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

If something is already a problem, you don't want to encourage it with admin tools. Policing the queue for improperly added co-authors is already an issue for mods; don't you think an in-game prompt to automatically add a co-author would multiply the problem...especially among newbies who don't necessarily understand how complicated GA rules are?

Would it, though? I doubt that too many newbies would fill in the co-author simply because it was there, particularly if there was a warning that consent from the co-author was required.

Of course they would! Have you any idea how many region tags have been added to non-applicable regions, just because they were there? In particular try counting up all the regions with the "No WA/GA/SC Campaigning" tags who don't even have delegates.

[Auralia]

Could we get a response from the admins with respect to the feasibility of Glen-Rhodes' proposed co-author tagging system, or a simple co-author field for proposals?

[Ballotonia]

Could we get a response from the admins with respect to the feasibility of Glen-Rhodes' proposed co-author tagging system, or a simple co-author field for proposals?

While feasible, it also makes the proposal process more cumbersome as this would call for a new step added: waiting for agreement by the intended co-author to be formally listed as co-author. The current system works well: co-authors are in the text of the resolution, and mods can delete as needed.

What is lacking in this technical suggestion is the added value. Why bother? How does it make the game better?

Ballotonia

[Glen-Rhodes]

While feasible, it also makes the proposal process more cumbersome as this would call for a new step added: waiting for agreement by the intended co-author to be formally listed as co-author. The current system works well: co-authors are in the text of the resolution, and mods can delete as needed.

It would only make the proposal process more cumbersome if you attempt to use a bad design. There is a way to do this without changing the proposal process at all. Just add a field where authors can write in co-authors. Send a TG to the co-authors prompting them to accept/decline the offer. If they do it in time, they're listed and they get a badge if the resolution passes. If they don't accept in time, then the resolution goes to vote without them listed. Nothing really changes in the process. There's no need to pause the process and wait for co-authors.

What is lacking in this technical suggestion is the added value. Why bother? How does it make the game better?

That's a pretty big hurdle that you guys don't always apply to your own changes! (It's arguable that there's any added value in the RMB post notification. Which, by the way, doesn't show up with the Antiquity theme for some reason.) There would be added value for WA authors. One, you no longer need to waste precious space including a co-author line. Two, we could safely increase the number of co-authors to correctly give credit where it is due. (There would be opposition to this from the oldies club, but the primary reason for this rule existing would no longer be relevant.)

Lastly, I think you could argue that it provides a reward for a largely thankless job. A very, very small group of people (relative to other areas of the game) make the World Assembly run. Without us, the World Assembly would just be used for ejecting banning during raids via the delegate position. So if we can provide some utility to co-authors, who often go unnamed and unrecognized, I think that will only be a positive development.

[Unibot III]

Also the co-author rules are pretty messy because the GA has gotten pretty specific over how exactly it wants co-authorships notated. An automated system would notate the co-authorship in the format that the rules would like it.

I also think G-R brings up a good point that the system largely doesn't need to be designed any different than we already do it -- except more efficient, because at least players would be informed when someone notates that they are a co-author of a proposal.. so they could report fraud to the moderators more easily. I don't follow the queue very often anymore, if a proposal came to vote with someone claiming I co-authored it.. I probably wouldn't even notice it.

[Glen-Rhodes]

... so they could report fraud to the moderators more easily.

You don't even need to do that. Just let the player control whether or not they are listed as a co-author.

[Unibot III]

... so they could report fraud to the moderators more easily.

You don't even need to do that. Just let the player control whether or not they are listed as a co-author.

That's true too. Bypassing moderation there would be constructive. I also don't understand why authors can't delete their own proposals with the click of a button.

[Corporation de Apple]

I know many new nations, and even established ones, like to place co-authorship clauses in the resolution text. Wouldn't it be easier for them to specify a co-author through some sort of text input box, and then, if the proposal passed, give the badge of GA/SC authorship to both/all three writers? It'd look a bit neater as well.