NationStates

Great idea and definite support from me.

Bump. Also, I don't know what's going on with the issues part so ill contact Vulty via Discord.

Lenlyvit wrote:Bump

Our admins have almost certainly seen this thread, as they have made posts in other threads. They may have added it to our 5-year-long to-do list. I happen to have a good idea what current priorities are, and this isn't even on the radar.

Feel free to bump this thread every six months or so if you like. Let's not do daily or even monthly bumps. It's not going to raise the priority of this change.

*gently bumps* Well, its been about six months. I've updated the co-author lists, but I still need to figure out what to do about finding issues co-authors so stay tuned for that.

Kuriko wrote:I still need to figure out what to do about finding issues co-authors so stay tuned for that.

Try looking through the credits in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88

For example, this issue has two authors: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88&start=25#895

Older issues may have uncredited co-authors because the issues set-up was less sophisticated back then.

USS Monitor wrote:

Kuriko wrote:I still need to figure out what to do about finding issues co-authors so stay tuned for that.

Try looking through the credits in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88

For example, this issue has two authors: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88&start=25#895

Older issues may have uncredited co-authors because the issues set-up was less sophisticated back then.

Alright, I've added what I found although it doesn't seem there's very many. If I missed any I would appreciate it if someone pointed that out.

Kuriko wrote:

USS Monitor wrote:
Try looking through the credits in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88

For example, this issue has two authors: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=88&start=25#895

Older issues may have uncredited co-authors because the issues set-up was less sophisticated back then.

Alright, I've added what I found although it doesn't seem there's very many. If I missed any I would appreciate it if someone pointed that out.

I think co-authoring is less common in issues because people can get the editors to help them clean up their issue instead of getting a co-author to help them before they submit. You have to get your draft to the point that there's something for the editors to work with, but you don't have to get it to the point that it's ready to go in the game as is.

How many nations will this actually be applied to? I can't imagine a badge would be hard to create, but it's not exactly something I would put as a priority (even on the 5 year list Fris mentioned 6 months back). Add in having to apply to all the past co-authors, and then figuring out whether it's automatic which OP said (lots of work for techies now) or mods/GenSec/issue editors having to apply it for every resolution (lots of work but over time). Like, I'm not against the idea in principle, just seems like a lot of work for only a small amount of players when the same effort could go in for other small new features/QoL stuff/reruns of events etc.

Flanderlion wrote:How many nations will this actually be applied to? I can't imagine a badge would be hard to create, but it's not exactly something I would put as a priority (even on the 5 year list Fris mentioned 6 months back). Add in having to apply to all the past co-authors, and then figuring out whether it's automatic which OP said (lots of work for techies now) or mods/GenSec/issue editors having to apply it for every resolution (lots of work but over time). Like, I'm not against the idea in principle, just seems like a lot of work for only a small amount of players when the same effort could go in for other small new features/QoL stuff/reruns of events etc.

Isnt that the whole point of a priority list? So more important or valuable features get priority?

USS Monitor wrote:

Kuriko wrote:Alright, I've added what I found although it doesn't seem there's very many. If I missed any I would appreciate it if someone pointed that out.

I think co-authoring is less common in issues because people can get the editors to help them clean up their issue instead of getting a co-author to help them before they submit. You have to get your draft to the point that there's something for the editors to work with, but you don't have to get it to the point that it's ready to go in the game as is.

Yeah, that actually makes sense. Thanks for the help USS Moniter

Six month bump and update. Pretty sure I didn't miss any co-authors, and I went through the lists and moved CTEd nations and refounded nations to where they belong.

I know it's been more like 7 months than 6, but this is my 6 month bump. Lists are updated with new co-authors, but I didn't move CTE/non-CTE nations.

This is definitely something useful, I would also love for co authorship to be hard coded into the submissions page.

This would make it even more important for Gensec (in the GA), the Mods (in the SC), and Issues Editors (for issues, of course), to look at whether a named co-author had actually contributed enough to earn the badge... which could seem highly subjective, and a probable cause of disputes.
Against.
(and I say this as as [twice] a GA co-author...)

I just want to gently bump this since [v] seems to be around again lately, and hopefully see what she thinks.

Bears Armed wrote:This would make it even more important for Gensec (in the GA), the Mods (in the SC), and Issues Editors (for issues, of course), to look at whether a named co-author had actually contributed enough to earn the badge... which could seem highly subjective, and a probable cause of disputes.
Against.
(and I say this as as [twice] a GA co-author...)

I don't know about the GA, but in the SC there are hardly any disputes on co-authorship and I highly doubt there are disputes on issues being written. Also, sometimes it's fairly obvious when someone contributes enough to a proposal for co-authorship because they'll be right there in the discussion thread with the author. At least, that's what I see most of the time.

Kuriko wrote:I just want to gently bump this since [v] seems to be around again lately, and hopefully see what she thinks.

Bears Armed wrote:This would make it even more important for Gensec (in the GA), the Mods (in the SC), and Issues Editors (for issues, of course), to look at whether a named co-author had actually contributed enough to earn the badge... which could seem highly subjective, and a probable cause of disputes.
Against.
(and I say this as as [twice] a GA co-author...)

I don't know about the GA, but in the SC there are hardly any disputes on co-authorship and I highly doubt there are disputes on issues being written. Also, sometimes it's fairly obvious when someone contributes enough to a proposal for co-authorship because they'll be right there in the discussion thread with the author. At least, that's what I see most of the time.

But I suspect that if there was a badge involved more people might name 'co-authors' even when those other players named hadn't really done much, to "reward" friends or for some quid pro quo...

Kuriko wrote:I just want to gently bump this since [v] seems to be around again lately, and hopefully see what she thinks.

Well from my perspective, the basic functionality of allowing people to enter co-authors could be implemented without too much trouble. But everything else does seem troublesome, in particular:

- When someone lists other nations as co-authors of their proposals, who / how do we verify that those nations really are co-authors and want to be listed

- There is currently no ability to edit past WA resolutions

- Assuming I could add an edit feature, going back and editing 2,000+ past resolutions and issues based on sketchy surviving records is quite a lot of error-prone work. I also imagine it would be essentially never-ending as people retrospectively realize that this or that resolution should/shouldn't have a particular nation listed.

[violet] wrote:

Kuriko wrote:I just want to gently bump this since [v] seems to be around again lately, and hopefully see what she thinks.

Well from my perspective, the basic functionality of allowing people to enter co-authors could be implemented without too much trouble. But everything else does seem troublesome, in particular:

- When someone lists other nations as co-authors of their proposals, who / how do we verify that those nations really are co-authors and want to be listed

Well, right now the standard is that they post in the drafting thread that their work is being used with permission. I don't know if there's ever been an attempt to list someone as a coauthor with their permission but I don't see why it wouldn't apply.

[violet] wrote:- There is currently no ability to edit past WA resolutions

- Assuming I could add an edit feature, going back and editing 2,000+ past resolutions and issues based on sketchy surviving records is quite a lot of error-prone work. I also imagine it would be essentially never-ending as people retrospectively realize that this or that resolution should/shouldn't have a particular nation listed.

I don't think it's fair to ask for more then listed coauthors be retroactively given the badge, even editing past resolutions is a bit much.

Bears Armed wrote:I suspect that if there was a badge involved more people might name 'co-authors' even when those other players named hadn't really done much, to "reward" friends or for some quid pro quo...

But should that be a rules violation or a part of the politics...

I'd go for the latter if only because anything else would be a pain to enforce with offsite drafting.

I could've sworn that I replied to this yesterday, but apparently I never posted it? Anyways, Aclion has pretty much hit the nail on the head. I'm not asking for past resolutions to be edited, that'd be a nightmare I wouldn't wish upon anyone.

What I'm asking, [v], is if it would be possible to retroactively place a badge on co-author nations. This wouldn't take as much work I believe, and that's why I created the list of co-authors in the OP. I was also wondering if, going forward from whenever it's possible to do, a co-author section could be hard coded into WA resolution submission which would automatically place a badge for co-authoring when a resolution passes.

Right now moderation handles co-authoring based upon an honor system, which I believe would still be the same even with this change.

Aclion wrote:Well, right now the standard is that they post in the drafting thread that their work is being used with permission. I don't know if there's ever been an attempt to list someone as a coauthor with their permission but I don't see why it wouldn't apply.

There's been a few, and iirc, it was treated as grounds for removal, but that was pre-GenSec control panel. To my knowledge, it's never been used offensively to remove a proposal, which is something I'd be concerned about if there was a way to do it without the forum involved.

Kuriko wrote:What I'm asking, [v], is if it would be possible to retroactively place a badge on co-author nations.

It's possible but a bit problematic, because you're suggesting that some nations (going forward) would have a co-author badge because they're listed co-authors, while others (retrospectively) would have a badge even though they're not listed. That's the kind of hack that should be avoided if possible, because it makes everything else difficult -- for example, anyone attempting to read resolutions to generate a list of co-authors (either via the site or the API) would wind up with an incomplete list: The only way to get a comprehensive one would be to scan every single nation and check for the existence of a badge.

So if it's going to be done, I think it should be done properly, i.e. by editing past resolutions.

Anyway that's just the technical side. I don't think anyone has addressed who exactly would be responsible for moderating and verifying this stuff, both retrospectively and in the future. Gen-Sec? Mods? If there's a dispute, who resolves it? It's not sufficient to take a player-generated list of names and just start applying badges with no oversight or appeals process.

[violet] wrote:

Kuriko wrote:Anyway that's just the technical side. I don't think anyone has addressed who exactly would be responsible for moderating and verifying this stuff, both retrospectively and in the future. Gen-Sec? Mods? If there's a dispute, who resolves it?

If I may make a suggestion for a moment here, I gotta say I don't think there should be a one-size-fits-all moderation for disputes. I think we should kinda retain the current "moderation" we have for each of the individual sections which this change would be implemented to.

E.G.
General Assembly - moderated by GenSec
Security Council - moderated by moderators
Issues - moderated by the Issues Editors

Of course, I use "moderated" a bit loosely here, but you should know what I mean.

This obviously wouldn't resolve all the issues, but in terms of what I quoted, I think it's really the only way to handle it.

Thanks for answering [v]. I'll just have to settle for it never coming to happen I guess.

Issue co-authors now get badges. This idea in relation to WA co-authors has, extremely recently, been refloated in the GA Tech Thread - hence my unsolicited bumparoo.

I have a few questions, mostly regarding how co-authors are recognised in previous resolutions:

• The GA Tech Thread's summary of this thread's proposal is "Hard coding co-authors." Would such a technical solution really be preferable to the existing system of listing co-authors in the body of a resolution, with a new step of then having badges manually added to those co-authors?
• Should co-authors of UN/Historical Resolutions get co-author badges, if GA/SC resolution co-authors get their own colour badges? (If they do, in keeping with Lenlyvit's suggestions in OP, I reckon they should be gold. )
• Some resolutions cite co-authors differently. The last line of HR#119 states that "The Author wishes to thank the Nation of “Yeldan UN Mission” whose assistance has been invaluable."; the last line of GA#23 reads "I'd like to thank...Yelda!"; GA#72 was "Edited by Charlotte Ryberg"; GA#258 cites an "Editor: Discoveria"; GA#288 "includes significant contributions made by Sciongrad"; SC#230 contains "contributions from RiderSyl." Should they be recognised as co-authors of their respective resolutions?
• Some resolutions cite non-submitting authors. HR#136 and HR#147 were both authored by Gruenberg, but submitted by Fonzoland and Omigodtheykilledkenny2 respectively; GA#20 was submitted by Mavenu but lists an "Author: St Edmund"; GA#101 was submitted by Grays Harbor but "Authored by The Federal Republic of New Rockport." Should they be recognised as authors or co-authors in these cases? (During the discussion on Page 1, Lenlyvit chose to classify them as co-authors for their internal/unofficial/threadside list.)
• GA#72 was "Co-written by Charlottle Ryberg." Should the co-author badge go to Charlottle Ryberg, which was created during the vote on GA#72 and made exactly one forum post, or to Charlotte Ryberg (the correctly-spelled nation which Bergnovinaia sought to recognise as co-author instead)?
• HR#90 was submitted by Grosseschnauzer, who therefore has a Historical Resolution Author badge in regards to this resolution. Its final line asserts that it was "Based upon an original proposal by Tejasdom, with subsequent contributions by Mikitivity, Grosseschnauzer, and Groot Gouda." Should Tejasdom be recognised as the author and Grosseschnauzer as the co-author (along with Mikitivity and Groot Gouda) to reflect the fact that Tejasdom came up with the original idea and received help from the other three listed nations, or vice versa to reflect the fact that Grosseschnauzer submitted the resolution?
• Should nations associated with organisations that have been cited as co-authors (including "Members of ORGANISATION NAME HERE") receive co-author badges in any capacity? (If not, the below questions can be safely disregarded.)
  
  • HR#146, authored by Yeldan UN Mission, was "Co-Authored by UNOG," which counts among its ranks hundreds of so-called Ideological Bulwarks. Should all of those people - including the likes of Bananaistan and Imperium Anglorum, neither of which existed at the time HR#146 passed - get a co-author badge for this? Although there is no up-to-date full list of UNOG members available to the public, we do have the last post in this thread, which was last updated about two months after HR#146 passed; should everybody on that list (or at least those added before its passage) be given the badge?
  • HR#155, authored by Fonzoland, was "Co-authored by the GTT." The GTT - or the Green Think Tank - has had at least 25 members other than Fonzoland. Should all of those people get a co-author badge for Waste Disposal Covenant?
  • HR#165 and HR#177 were both "Co-authored by the members of ACCEL." ACCEL appears to have been composed of regions, rather than individual nations, much like the United Regions Alliance today. Who among the ACCEL, if anyone, deserves a co-author badge for these two resolutions?
  • HR#196 was similarly "Authored by the members of ACCEL." Should this be treated as an authorship or a co-authorship (assuming that ACCEL recognition for the above two resolutions is granted)?
  • HR#201 was "Co-authored by Members of Wall Street." Members of Wall Street was an actual nation that existed at the time of HR#201's passage, although there existed a region also called Wall Street at the time. I should assume that the co-author badge, if historical resolution co-authors get badges, goes to the nation of Members of Wall Street - should it not?

[violet] wrote:So if it's going to be done, I think it should be done properly, i.e. by editing past resolutions.

Editing past resolutions is an abuse of power that should be immediately ruled out. Under no circumstances should admin/mod/pink power rangers/anyone else be editing anything fairly passed by a vote of the General Assembly. Those of us who wrote resolutions put effort into writing them and any changes were argued for at the time; to impose them on a post facto whim without a GA vote is repulsive.

That aside, the whole "co-author" debate is utterly toxic. I really wish we'd just banned them all back when the rules were """"redrafted"""".