The "Get The Cat-Tribe A Commendation Project"

[Unibot]

Condemnations for generalites will likely not pass the first test, though.

Very likely, yes. Doesn't mean that someone CAN'T be creative and manage it though.

Personally I don't see anything controversial about a non-personal condemnation of a generalite, perhaps they like to post as a contemptible ideologue. It would be a backhand commendation like "Commend Omigodtheykilledkenny".

[Barringtonia]

In seriousness, I disagree with the idea of nominating General forum members of any type with baubles and trinkets such as a commendation. Where it's a formal role such as Issues Editor or Moderator then that's fine since it denotes responsibilities but this...

First it's entrenching a form or type of contribution, placing arbitrary socially-denoted definitions on value and, more, I cannot see how this would be objective and therefore would somewhat formalise the overall tone of NSG. I imagine a good troll, who sparks debate within the confines of the rules, would never be commended but who's to say what is of 'value' in this respect - is it confined to 'well--sourced and lengthy expertise in a certain subject?

Will a more right-wing member honestly ever be commended? Really?

It's the first step to 'some word I can't think of, somewhere along the lines of formal worship, demagogy or heirarchy' and although that's overstating it - despite not having a word - it's still the first step (I think the phrase that jars with me is 'model citizenry', a notion I feel constricts a society, especially where formalised).

People may say, as has been touched upon, that there's a form of cult following here and there anyway but at least it's not formalised.

That's without going into the flipside of condemning people.

EDIT: Where it's for a WA contribution then fine, same as SC where it's more a formalised structure in terms of fundamental for the board's existence but General doesn't have such a set purpose, it's not really roleplaying within a medium and thus shouldn't have recognised 'achievements' as such.

[Unibot]

In seriousness, I disagree with the idea of nominating General forum members of any type with baubles and trinkets such as a commendation. Where it's a formal role such as Issues Editor or Moderator then that's fine since it denotes responsibilities but this...

First it's entrenching a form or type of contribution, placing arbitrary socially-denoted definitions on value and, more, I cannot see how this would be objective and therefore would somewhat formalise the overall tone of NSG. I imagine a good troll, who sparks debate within the confines of the rules, would never be commended but who's to say what is of 'value' in this respect - is it confined to 'well--sourced and lengthy expertise in a certain subject?

Will a more right-wing member honestly ever be commended? Really?

It's the first step to 'some word I can't think of, somewhere along the lines of formal worship, demagogy or heirarchy' and although that's overstating it - despite not having a word - it's still the first step (I think the phrase that jars with me is 'model citizenry', a notion I feel constricts a society, especially where formalised).

People may say, as has been touched upon, that there's a form of cult following here and there anyway but at least it's not formalised.

That's without going into the flipside of condemning people.

EDIT: Where it's for a WA contribution then fine, same as SC where it's more a formalised structure in terms of fundamental for the board's existence but General doesn't have such a set purpose, it's not really roleplaying within a medium and thus shouldn't have recognised 'achievements' as such.

Some words you may have been thinking of: supplication or apotheosis.

Is model citizenry, a subjective term? On an ideological interpretiation, perhaps. However, this commendation is not for TCT's ideologies,

Do you deny that a 'good' 'citizen' on NSG should..

• Have thorough willingness --in the spirit of goodwill-- to thoughtfully explain topics upon request?
• Not accepting assertions as fact, thus require proper research and citation?
• Distinguish between fact and opinion?
• Seek to uncover assumptions, unquestioned beliefs and faulty logic?
• Distinguish between connotative and denotative meaning?
• Be open to new ideas?
• Apply reason and logic to discussions?

I actually borrowed much of this objective criteria from communication theory in regards to what makes a constructive, critical listener/speaker, and it does correlate with the Security Council's mission statement.

Also maybe we should be clear, this is what the Security Council thinks is model citizenry for all member-nations.

[Unibot]

EDIT: Where it's for a WA contribution then fine, same as SC where it's more a formalised structure in terms of fundamental for the board's existence but General doesn't have such a set purpose, it's not really roleplaying within a medium and thus shouldn't have recognised 'achievements' as such.

General --> "For discussion and debate about anything."

The subject is ambiguous, but discussion and debate are not.

[Barringtonia]

Some words you may have been thinking of: supplication or apotheosis.

Is model citizenry, a subjective term? On an ideological interpretiation, perhaps. However, this commendation is not for TCT's ideologies,

Do you deny that a 'good' 'citizen' on NSG should..

• Have thorough willingness --in the spirit of goodwill-- to thoughtfully explain topics upon request?
• Not accepting assertions as fact, thus require proper research and citation?
• Distinguish between fact and opinion?
• Seek to uncover assumptions, unquestioned beliefs and faulty logic?
• Distinguish between connotative and denotative meaning?
• Be open to new ideas?
• Apply reason and logic to discussions?

I actually borrowed much of this objective criteria from communication theory in regards to what makes a constructive, critical listener/speaker, and it does correlate with the Security Council's mission statement.

Also maybe we should be clear, this is what the Security Council thinks is model citizenry for all member-nations.

Thing is, I certainly appreciate and recognise the value in and of themselves in many of TCTs posts but if General was that thorough over everything I'd die of boredom - not that the posts are boring but for that level to permeate the board would take away a lot of the variety I enjoy with NSG.

Although people complain of liberal bias I genuinely find this board more open than many others and I think that's partly due to the relatively non-structured nature of General. One aspect I've previously noted is that many forums endlessly create sub-forum headings even under the equivalent of General, which means there's little scope to go outside the borders of that description and so conversations don't meander the way they can on General.

What I guess I'm saying is that I value variety on the General boards, hence my mild opposition to F7 not due to its content but that it delineates between serious and relaxed somewhat. Simple fact is that General (and thus Fiction and F7) are different to the roleplaying aspect of NS. Hence to create some sort of defined reward for them steers General in a certain direction - it's for discussion and debate and this seems to lean towards the 'debate' side too much. This is clearly just my own perspective but I generally see General akin to the pub you go to after the 'work' of RP'ing and sit around with some relatively smart people to chat and debate - while the thorough person is certainly valued as an aspect, to somehow reward that officially detracts from the overall air.

General --> "For discussion and debate about anything."

The subject is ambiguous, but discussion and debate are not.

On F7, would you similarly propose we commend those who excel in 'The place to relax, unwind, share a joke, and generally goof off'.

EDIT: Clarified that this is SC commending a Generalite rather than General on General but, as before, where this is for an SC or gameside-related contribution then fine but it strikes me as even odder that SC would commend a Generalite as such - and still, it doesn't sit right with me to add this to the general nature of NSG.

[Arkinesia]

No, not now, not ever.

NSG should not be commemorated on the game side.

NSG should not be commemorated, period.

[Unibot]

Some words you may have been thinking of: supplication or apotheosis.

Is model citizenry, a subjective term? On an ideological interpretiation, perhaps. However, this commendation is not for TCT's ideologies,

Do you deny that a 'good' 'citizen' on NSG should..

• Have thorough willingness --in the spirit of goodwill-- to thoughtfully explain topics upon request?
• Not accepting assertions as fact, thus require proper research and citation?
• Distinguish between fact and opinion?
• Seek to uncover assumptions, unquestioned beliefs and faulty logic?
• Distinguish between connotative and denotative meaning?
• Be open to new ideas?
• Apply reason and logic to discussions?

I actually borrowed much of this objective criteria from communication theory in regards to what makes a constructive, critical listener/speaker, and it does correlate with the Security Council's mission statement.

Also maybe we should be clear, this is what the Security Council thinks is model citizenry for all member-nations.

Thing is, I certainly appreciate and recognise the value in and of themselves in many of TCTs posts but if General was that thorough over everything I'd die of boredom - not that the posts are boring but for that level to permeate the board would take away a lot of the variety I enjoy with NSG.

That's a fair point we wouldn't want to encourage something that shouldn't be encouraged for all. However, I don't think that you have to write like TCT, with long posts to comply to that list.

And, you know what? You don't have to comply! That's the beautiful thing about the Security Council, it's not telling you that you all must be like TCT, and thus establishing a rule for NSG, it's recognizing the conduct of TCT as worthy of commendation for all of NationStates. By commending TCT, it isn't instantly stating that you're not worthy of a commendation. However, if you are ...

• Thoroughly unwilling to thoughtfully explain topics upon request.
• Always accept assertions as fact.
• Can't give a tit what the difference is between fact and opinion.
• An assumption maker, unquestioning believer and/or just a fallacious logician.
• Dogmatic.
• Relatively irrational -- in the annoying sense, not the flippant sense.

You're commendation would contradict what the Security Council previously viewed as good conduct. Note that in the Security Council we do not endorse nominees, players or posters themselves.. and maybe I need to make this clearer in the resolution.. in fact I will. You see, the Security Council endorses actions, conduct, behavior.. not isolated characters.

My hope is with this commendation passed, further commendations can focused on more light-hearted posters like LG, but that isn't going to happen without precedent, it just won't. The Security Council needs to see contributions, something tangible that it can go, "you know what? this dude actually has put a lot of effort into his posts."

[Barringtonia]

I'd like to add that I certainly recognise the good intentions behind this proposal, and I also think TCT makes a good candidate were such a thing to be done, it's just I view General as somewhat separate - I almost agree that, really, if there were ever a balloon debate on which forum should be flung out given data doomsday, I would argue that General should be the forum flung but that's consistent with the feeling that General is distinct from the game aspects, hence the pub after work analogy, the work is central and important despite people enjoying a pint afterwards and thus promotions and rewards remain at work though, to be fair, I also recognise some people never leave the pub...

..bloody scamps!

[Unibot]

UNDERSTANDING that as an exemplary model of constructive, critical, informed and civil debate, The Cat-Tribe's forum and general conduct will help future generations of NationStates establish further resolutions of peace and goodwill,

Note that nowhere in the penultimate clause does it state that Cat-Tribe's conduct is an exemplary model of a NSG debate, nor does the clause state that Cat-Tribe (as a player) is an exemplary model of a NSG poster. It merely states that Cat-Tribe's conduct is an exemplary model of a constructive, critical, informed and civil debate.

Is that such a controversial statement?

[Unibot]

I'd like to add that I certainly recognise the good intentions behind this proposal, and I also think TCT makes a good candidate were such a thing to be done, it's just I view General as somewhat separate - I almost agree that, really, if there were ever a balloon debate on which forum should be flung out given data doomsday, I would argue that General should be the forum flung but that's consistent with the feeling that General is distinct from the game aspects, hence the pub after work analogy, the work is central and important despite people enjoying a pint afterwards and thus promotions and rewards remain at work though, to be fair, I also recognise some people never leave the pub...

..bloody scamps!

I would argue that TCT's conduct is not irrelevant to the rest of NationStates. The WA really benefited from his style of debate, and that is just one example of how NationStates, not just General, can benefit from players taking a page from TCT's book of conduct, once and while.

[Barringtonia]

Is that such a controversial statement?

None of this is controversial, it's a reasonable proposal and I hope I'm merely offering a reasonable opinion in response. I suspect I've put my point forward and there's not much need for me to reiterate - I've no truck with the wording of the proposal and more with the overall nature and where I feel this is...

...I guess, for General, I enjoy a space where all forms of contribution are encouraged, I find variety of contribution in and of itself more important than the content of that contribution and anything that values one form over another is detrimental to the whole. Certainly flaming and obscenity can be curtailed - I recognise they need to be though I'd rather a world where they didn't need to be but by the by.. - but the positive commendation of a form of content over another..

It's about creating a standard, whether that's not the intent or purpose or otherwise, it's the effect of recognition.

Again, this is purely my perspective and it's not something I'm particularly opposed to, more an objection based on preference.

[Unibot]

Is that such a controversial statement?

None of this is controversial, it's a reasonable proposal and I hope I'm merely offering a reasonable opinion in response. I suspect I've put my point forward and there's not much need for me to reiterate - I've no truck with the wording of the proposal and more with the overall nature and where I feel this is...

...I guess, for General, I enjoy a space where all forms of contribution are encouraged, I find variety of contribution in and of itself more important than the content of that contribution and anything that values one form over another is detrimental to the whole. Certainly flaming and obscenity can be curtailed - I recognise they need to be though I'd rather a world where they didn't need to be but by the by.. - but the positive commendation of a form of content over another..

It's about creating a standard.

Again, this is purely my perspective and it's not something I'm particularly opposed to, more an objection based on preference.

No, I think it's a good point. What I'm looking for is to commend TCT on a standard for debate, where the opposite would be universally substandard debate.. but at the same token, I don't want to limit further advances of standards like humor, satire and bigheartedness. Thus, I'm trying to keep the commendation focused to a particular type of debate. I hope that way it can address some of your objection.

I have no problems with you voicing your perspective, preference or objections otherwise ... but I do have a responsibility as an author to either try to provide an alternative perspective, compromise or otherwise alter the resolution. In this case, I have a chosen a mix of all three, because I see the merit in your objection, but I think some of it is based either on a misunderstanding of the resolution's intention or a sort of polite ethnocentrism.

[The Rich Port]

How about writing at the bottom something about how there are way too many good things to say about Cat-Tribes to even name.

[Unibot]

How about writing at the bottom something about how there are way too many good things to say about Cat-Tribes to even name.

Tempting but no.

[Barringtonia]

...but I think some of it is based either on a misunderstanding of the resolution's intention or a sort of polite ethnocentrism.

As I said, it's not the intention but the effect I mildly object to, otherwise, I'm specifically against 'ethnocentrism', or at least promoting one culture over another - my specific point is not to promote anything in a formal manner on an informal board.

Why are we promoting a structure of debate to begin with over any other valuable contribution that makes NSG what it is - if NSG were to create a commendation for WA based on humorous approach, for example, would you feel that's a worthy addition or somewhat irrelevant if not unnecessary. Nor am I promoting NSG as such as making the point that it's a different format, which probably doesn't require rewards for a certain style of contribution.

Anyway, honestly, don't feel obligated to alter anything on my behalf given nothing in the proposal, given its base aims, is an issue over the underlying concept to begin with.

[Unibot]

- if NSG were to create a commendation for WA based on humorous approach, for example, would you feel that's a worthy addition or somewhat irrelevant if not unnecessary.

I wouldn't have a problem with that if the comedian were a long-time standing member with his/her own cult following sort of, like LG or Rhod (for a while). But that isn't going to become a reality until we pass a more noncontroversial commendation -- audiences vote with precedent in mind. I had to do the same sort of thing in II. In fact, the funny thing about what I did in II is, the old guard of II was so against the SC that I could only find a very very young player who would be nominated for a condemnation. Once I got him condemned, the entire perspective of the SC in II changed, because the old guard probably felt envious of the vanguard. I mean, they absolutely did not get recognition, and I did it intentionally. I plan on increasing II C&Cs for the older veterans in the coming months as well, now that they're on board for the project, for the most part (I still get laughed out of some threads when I say I'm from the WA!).

[Tagmatium]

Meh to this.

I lost a lot of respect for The Cat Tribes following that whole "I'm going to bitch in Moderation until I get the ruling I want" thing between him and Jingoist Hippistan.

[Unibot]

Meh to this.

I lost a lot of respect for The Cat Tribes following that whole "I'm going to bitch in Moderation until I get the ruling I want" thing between him and Jingoist Hippistan.

Well, he's not being commended for his actions in Moderation. So that discussion is off-topic. However, I'd defend his appeal to Moderation, he had a right to as a player, I've done it several times myself, and his appeal was in the style of debate that coincides with what we're commending him for.

EDIT: Furthermore, I think it is a common fallacy in our modern times to assume that an argument --in its self-- is the problem, instead of the problem being what is being argued. Because of this fallacy we often identify the person who begins the argument as the problem-maker instead of the person who wants to see a problem addressed. I don't have a source for this, it's just an observation, and I think it may be something to think about in relation to some moderation appeals.

[Bluth Corporation]

Definitely not, for a few reasons:

First, TCT's recent behavior reeks of attention-seeking behavior. If you're going to take a break, just take a break--you don't have to make a big production about it. You certainly don't need to make a big deal about how you're coming back "just for this one post, but don't bother trying to contact me because I probably won't be back any time soon" or how you're going to leave "real soon now" but still stick around to settle old scores. Leave or don't leave; it doesn't matter, but don't act like it's an epochal event in NS history.

Second, his posts have contributed very little to ongoing discussions. By and large, they consist of little more than copy-and-paste infodumps from law textbooks. He seems to think that a positivist description of how the law is currently interpreted can substitute for an original, substantial argument as to whether or not that's how the law should be interpreted, or even whether or not that law should be on the books at all. He may indeed have his own opinions on such issues, but I'm not sure I've ever seen them presented. Regardless, as most discussions on NSG in which this comes into play tend to revolve around what the law should be rather than what the law is (over which there's little disagreement), his positivist infodumps really are little more than spam. I'm not sure I've ever seen him contribute any sort of original insight.

Third, he has little (if any) respect for the opinions of those with whom he disagrees. Rather than even try to understand why people with whom he disagrees think as they do, he seems to immediately assume that such individuals are somehow mentally/intellectually/morally defective, and unworthy of a substantial explanation or further discussion.

Certainly, I used to be guilty on this last point too. The difference is that, one, I'm not anymore; and two, I'm willing to acknowledge it.

[Bluth Corporation]

He is a good debater

He's really not.

Copy-and-paste infodumps from a law school textbook explaining what is are not substitutes for original, substantial, insightful arguments as to what should be.

[Unibot]

Definitely not, for a few reasons:

First, TCT's recent behavior reeks of attention-seeking behavior. If you're going to take a break, just take a break--you don't have to make a big production about it. You certainly don't need to make a big deal about how you're coming back "just for this one post, but don't bother trying to contact me because I probably won't be back any time soon" or how you're going to leave "real soon now" but still stick around to settle old scores. Leave or don't leave; it doesn't matter, but don't act like it's an epochal event in NS history.

He's not being commended for (perhaps) dramatically leaving, or his moderation history.

Second, his posts have contributed very little to ongoing discussions. By and large, they consist of little more than copy-and-paste infodumps from law textbooks. He seems to think that a positivist description of how the law is currently interpreted can substitute for an original, substantial argument as to whether or not that's how the law should be interpreted, or even whether or not that law should be on the books at all. He may indeed have his own opinions on such issues, but I'm not sure I've ever seen them presented. Regardless, as most discussions on NSG in which this comes into play tend to revolve around what the law should be rather than what the law is (over which there's little disagreement), his positivist infodumps really are little more than spam. I'm not sure I've ever seen him contribute any sort of original insight.

That's a fair point, but he is not being commended for his positivist views, either. He's being commended for when one says the law is currently interpreted as X, and TCT corrects the person by proving that the person meant to write that the law ought to be interpreted as X. The distinction is paramount.

Further commendations may focus on constructive debates over legal positivism and anti-positivism between individuals. But this commendation is not.

Third, he has little (if any) respect for the opinions of those with whom he disagrees. Rather than even try to understand why people with whom he disagrees think as they do, he seems to immediately assume that such individuals are somehow mentally/intellectually/morally defective, and unworthy of a substantial explanation or further discussion.

Generally speaking, the people he often gets in debate to, are defending ludicrous positions. At least the TCT treats them with enough respect to answer them as to why they are likely wrong.

[Person012345]

I support this.

[Tagmatium]

Well, he's not being commended for his actions in Moderation. So that discussion is off-topic. However, I'd defend his appeal to Moderation, he had a right to as a player, I've done it several times myself, and his appeal was in the style of debate that coincides with what we're commending him for.

However, actions are rarely in isolation of each other. I'm not suggesting that TCT ought not to have gone to moderation over the comments that were made, but that the whole affair rapidly became sordid and began to look like a tit-for-tat between the pair. The spate of appeals and counter-appeals seemed to me like an attempt to get a favourable ruling when the Moderator ruling had already been made.

It wasn't an edifying series of events for both the posters involved, and both of them were as guilty as each other in the end.

And the "style" used in the Moderator posts seemed to be nothing more than an interesting way of formatting posts and a willingness to dredge.

This is, of course, my opinion.

I'll be voting against this.

[Unibot]

[..]seemed to me like an attempt to get a favourable ruling when the Moderator ruling had already been made.

That is usually the point to a counter-appeal. I've been in that position myself, and it is particularly frustrating and tolling on one as a player -- soon the ruling consumes the rest of the game for the player. I would not want one incident to consume a life-time reputation for a player -- especially, when he did what was a legally allowed and did it in a manner that I approve of.

[Buffett and Colbert]

Well, he's not being commended for his actions in Moderation. So that discussion is off-topic.

It most certainly is not. His actions in Moderation directly add to how he is as a poster and affect our perception of him.