NATION

PASSWORD

Could we have another couple of rules for SC resolutions?

A chamber dedicated to the dissemination of inter-regional peace and goodwill, via force if necessary.
User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Could we have another couple of rules for SC resolutions?

Postby Sedgistan » Thu Nov 26, 2009 2:50 pm

Looking through the current ruleset (the first 2 points in this topic, and also this topic), I think there's still another couple of things which would be worth making illegal, and therefore grounds for deleting a proposal.

Firstly, plagiarism. As Kenny brought up here, the current WA resolution (Liberate Democratia) is "nothing more than a copy of Liberate Belgium, with some key words replaced". Proposals which plagiarise others should be deleted - resolutions should be original, and actually require some thought on behalf of the author, and it would mean that we don't just have a list of passed resolutions which are virtually identical.

Secondly, branding. We haven't had a problem yet, but it can't be long before we have a proposal which is co-authored by half of NationStates. I'm not talking about removing mentions of region/nations/organisations from resolutions - just that there can't be more than one co-author for a resolution. The GA has that rule in place for a good reason - because otherwise everyone who makes a suggestion towards changing a proposal would end up credited in it.

I also wouldn't mind seeing this upgraded to an actual law, so that if you violate it, your proposal is deleted:

Ardchoille wrote:They're a picky lot, the delegates. Here are some possible reasons why they've ignored your proposal:

Action:
1. You didn’t say what action you wanted the SC to take. You should clearly say in the text of your resolution, not just in the panels at the top, “The Security Council condemns (or commends) the nation (or region) @@NAME@@.”

2. You asked the SC to perform an extra action, eg, “Condemns @@NAME@@ and sows their fields with salt”.


Surely having a resolution which doesn't claim to do anything, or which claims to do things which it cannot do should be grounds for it being deleted, rather than just relying on delegates?

I know the desire is for delegates to police resolutions themselves, so that we have a minimal amount of laws, which lets the SC be used by all NS communities - and so allowing condemnations on the basis of ideology, or resolutions based on dubious facts is fine. However, the things mentioned above really shouldn't just be left to delegates.

EDIT: A slightly better summary - these wouldn't restrict what the SC can act upon, just regulate better how it acts.
Last edited by Sedgistan on Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:04 pm, edited 3 times in total.

User avatar
A mean old man
Senator
 
Posts: 4306
Founded: Jun 27, 2008
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby A mean old man » Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:15 pm

Sedgistan wrote:Firstly, plagiarism. As Kenny brought up here, the current WA resolution (Liberate Democratia) is "nothing more than a copy of Liberate Belgium, with some key words replaced". Proposals which plagiarise others should be deleted - resolutions should be original, and actually require some thought on behalf of the author, and it would mean that we don't just have a list of passed resolutions which are virtually identical.


Not arguing for or against this thread or this idea yet, but I've noticed that "liberate" resolutions tend to be almost exactly the same basic situations.
A: SC#16 - Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"
A: SC#26 - Commend The Joint Systems Alliance
A: SC#30 - Commend 10000 Islands
A: SC#37 - Condemn NAZI EUROPE
A: SC#38 - Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"
A: GA#149 - On Expiration Dates
C: SC#58 - Repeal "Commend Sedgistan"
A: SC#62 - Repeal "Condemn Swarmlandia"
C: SC#63 - Commend Ballotonia
A: SC#65 - Condemn Punk Reloaded
C: GA#163 - Repeal "Law of the Sea"
A: SC#72 - Repeal "Commend Mikeswill"
C: SC#74 - Condemn Lone Wolves United
C: SC#76 - Repeal "Condemn Thatcherton"
A: SC#81 - Repeal "Condemn Anthony Delasanta"
C: SC#83 - Condemn Automagfreek
C: SC#84 - Repeal "Liberate Islam"
C: SC#111 - Commend Krulltopia

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:19 pm

A mean old man wrote:Not arguing for or against this thread or this idea yet, but I've noticed that "liberate" resolutions tend to be almost exactly the same basic situations.


The 3 Liberation resolutions passed (Belgium, Feudal Japan, and The Security Council) are incredibly different. Two are in responses to invasions, one isn't. Of the two that are, one was recent and the natives were still there, the other was an old invasion, with the natives in a different region.Invasions of regions are different enough so that one can expect some variety in how Liberation resolutions are written.

User avatar
A mean old man
Senator
 
Posts: 4306
Founded: Jun 27, 2008
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby A mean old man » Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:30 pm

Sedgistan wrote:The 3 Liberation resolutions passed (Belgium, Feudal Japan, and The Security Council) are incredibly different. Two are in responses to invasions, one isn't. Of the two that are, one was recent and the natives were still there, the other was an old invasion, with the natives in a different region.Invasions of regions are different enough so that one can expect some variety in how Liberation resolutions are written.


I suppose.
A: SC#16 - Repeal "Liberate The Security Council"
A: SC#26 - Commend The Joint Systems Alliance
A: SC#30 - Commend 10000 Islands
A: SC#37 - Condemn NAZI EUROPE
A: SC#38 - Repeal "Condemn NAZI EUROPE"
A: GA#149 - On Expiration Dates
C: SC#58 - Repeal "Commend Sedgistan"
A: SC#62 - Repeal "Condemn Swarmlandia"
C: SC#63 - Commend Ballotonia
A: SC#65 - Condemn Punk Reloaded
C: GA#163 - Repeal "Law of the Sea"
A: SC#72 - Repeal "Commend Mikeswill"
C: SC#74 - Condemn Lone Wolves United
C: SC#76 - Repeal "Condemn Thatcherton"
A: SC#81 - Repeal "Condemn Anthony Delasanta"
C: SC#83 - Condemn Automagfreek
C: SC#84 - Repeal "Liberate Islam"
C: SC#111 - Commend Krulltopia

User avatar
Unibotian WASC Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Oct 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:34 pm

Plagiarism needs to be taken care of.

Other than that, I think we should deal with the other problems, when they actually become problems. I got to be honest and say if two people were credited as co-authors, I wouldn't give a crap, and yet according to GA rules thats illegal. If we get a resolution to vote with a dozen "co-authors" listed, well, then we should talk. I mean it seems unlikely, that twelve authors could equally author a proposal, but a proposal between three authors seems plausible, especially with the SC... I mean, I couldn't write a reactive liberation proposal without a second author who knew more about the gameplay history of the invasion, and I mean, I wouldn't need someone to proposal campaign for me, but someone else might. BANG, theres your three co-authors, the proposer, the informer and the campaigner.

User avatar
Sedgistan
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 27332
Founded: Oct 20, 2006
Ex-Nation

Postby Sedgistan » Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:37 pm

Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Other than that, I think we should deal with the other problems, when they actually become problems. I got to be honest and say if two people were credited as co-authors, I wouldn't give a crap, and yet according to GA rules thats illegal.


I suppose so - I went with 1 co-author, as thats what the GA has. I guess there'd be more justification for the SC having a higher limit, but I still feel a limit would be appropriate.

User avatar
Unibotian WASC Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Oct 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 26, 2009 3:40 pm

Sedgistan wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:Other than that, I think we should deal with the other problems, when they actually become problems. I got to be honest and say if two people were credited as co-authors, I wouldn't give a crap, and yet according to GA rules thats illegal.


I suppose so - I went with 1 co-author, as thats what the GA has. I guess there'd be more justification for the SC having a higher limit, but I still feel a limit would be appropriate.


Oh, and I know how I could cite an entire region as a co-author legally in the GA, but I'm not telling... :twisted: :rofl:

User avatar
Kalibarr
Minister
 
Posts: 2241
Founded: Sep 05, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Kalibarr » Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:47 pm

if you condemned someone for plagiarism would that count as a precedent for implementing that rule?

edit: or you could be more positive and commend someone for originality
Last edited by Kalibarr on Thu Nov 26, 2009 4:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:00 pm

I've brought up the branding problem before and was told the branding rules do not apply in the SC. I suppose I could submit a C&C with dozens of co-authors as a test case. I'll do that now.
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
Unibotian WASC Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Oct 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:06 pm

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:I've brought up the branding problem before and was told the branding rules do not apply in the SC. I suppose I could submit a C&C with dozens of co-authors as a test case. I'll do that now.


The problem is those nations didn't co-author it, and yes I realize they're all your puppets. :)

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:08 pm

Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:I've brought up the branding problem before and was told the branding rules do not apply in the SC. I suppose I could submit a C&C with dozens of co-authors as a test case. I'll do that now.


The problem is those nations didn't co-author it, and yes I realize they're all your puppets. :)


Well, the last two aren't. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that I listed multiple co-authors. Is that illegal in an SC proposal or do the branding rules not apply?
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
Unibotian WASC Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Oct 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:30 pm

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:I've brought up the branding problem before and was told the branding rules do not apply in the SC. I suppose I could submit a C&C with dozens of co-authors as a test case. I'll do that now.


The problem is those nations didn't co-author it, and yes I realize they're all your puppets. :)


Well, the last two aren't. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that I listed multiple co-authors. Is that illegal in an SC proposal or do the branding rules not apply?


Find me an instance where a dozen real authors have all collectively written a piece of work together in the SC, and I might reconsider my earlier statement.

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:35 pm

Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:I've brought up the branding problem before and was told the branding rules do not apply in the SC. I suppose I could submit a C&C with dozens of co-authors as a test case. I'll do that now.


The problem is those nations didn't co-author it, and yes I realize they're all your puppets. :)


Well, the last two aren't. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that I listed multiple co-authors. Is that illegal in an SC proposal or do the branding rules not apply?


Find me an instance where a dozen real authors have all collectively written a piece of work together in the SC, and I might reconsider my earlier statement.


Which earlier statement?

This is just a test case to force a ruling on co-authors. It doesn't really matter who the nations are or if they actually co-authored the thing. Is it legal to list more than one co-author in an SC proposal?
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
Unibotian WASC Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Oct 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:46 pm

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:I've brought up the branding problem before and was told the branding rules do not apply in the SC. I suppose I could submit a C&C with dozens of co-authors as a test case. I'll do that now.


The problem is those nations didn't co-author it, and yes I realize they're all your puppets. :)


Well, the last two aren't. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that I listed multiple co-authors. Is that illegal in an SC proposal or do the branding rules not apply?


Find me an instance where a dozen real authors have all collectively written a piece of work together in the SC, and I might reconsider my earlier statement.


Which earlier statement?

This is just a test case to force a ruling on co-authors. It doesn't really matter who the nations are or if they actually co-authored the thing. Is it legal to list more than one co-author in an SC proposal?


Yeah but they're not co-authors, if you really want to test the waters, we need real examples....
at the moment I'm not entirely sure banning multiple co-authors similar to the GA is a good idea, sure it could leave some idiots to co-author fifty people and waste space, but theres also no ban on submitting proposals in ALL CAPS (which would be a ban on stupidity). I just think there's a strong possibility of tri-authored resolutions in the future, and until I see some real problems... well....

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Thu Nov 26, 2009 5:49 pm

Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:I've brought up the branding problem before and was told the branding rules do not apply in the SC. I suppose I could submit a C&C with dozens of co-authors as a test case. I'll do that now.


The problem is those nations didn't co-author it, and yes I realize they're all your puppets. :)


Well, the last two aren't. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that I listed multiple co-authors. Is that illegal in an SC proposal or do the branding rules not apply?


Find me an instance where a dozen real authors have all collectively written a piece of work together in the SC, and I might reconsider my earlier statement.


Which earlier statement?

This is just a test case to force a ruling on co-authors. It doesn't really matter who the nations are or if they actually co-authored the thing. Is it legal to list more than one co-author in an SC proposal?


Yeah but they're not co-authors, if you really want to test the waters, we need real examples....
at the moment I'm not entirely sure banning multiple co-authors similar to the GA is a good idea, sure it could leave some idiots to co-author fifty people and waste space, but theres also no ban on submitting proposals in ALL CAPS (which would be a ban on stupidity). I just think there's a strong possibility of tri-authored resolutions in the future, and until I see some real problems... well....


Forget for a second that I listed a bunch of my own puppets + DLE and Cluichstan. Let's pretend that multiple nations really did co-author that commendation. Should it be legal to list more than one co-author? If so, why? Why is more than one co-author illegal in the GA? Why should more than one be legal in the SC?
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
Unibotian WASC Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Oct 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:00 pm

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:I've brought up the branding problem before and was told the branding rules do not apply in the SC. I suppose I could submit a C&C with dozens of co-authors as a test case. I'll do that now.


The problem is those nations didn't co-author it, and yes I realize they're all your puppets. :)


Well, the last two aren't. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that I listed multiple co-authors. Is that illegal in an SC proposal or do the branding rules not apply?


Find me an instance where a dozen real authors have all collectively written a piece of work together in the SC, and I might reconsider my earlier statement.


Which earlier statement?

This is just a test case to force a ruling on co-authors. It doesn't really matter who the nations are or if they actually co-authored the thing. Is it legal to list more than one co-author in an SC proposal?


Yeah but they're not co-authors, if you really want to test the waters, we need real examples....
at the moment I'm not entirely sure banning multiple co-authors similar to the GA is a good idea, sure it could leave some idiots to co-author fifty people and waste space, but theres also no ban on submitting proposals in ALL CAPS (which would be a ban on stupidity). I just think there's a strong possibility of tri-authored resolutions in the future, and until I see some real problems... well....


Forget for a second that I listed a bunch of my own puppets + DLE and Cluichstan. Let's pretend that multiple nations really did co-author that commendation. Should it be legal to list more than one co-author? If so, why? Why is more than one co-author illegal in the GA? Why should more than one be legal in the SC?


I don't know about your example of a dozen co-authors, because it seems unlikely that a dozen people could "equally" participate in the authoring of a proposal (if so -- I'd say each author did very very little to be proportional with 19 others).

But hypothetically speaking, I suppose I'd be okay with it, I prefer if they were more creative and named themselves as a Commission, Region, Committee, or WASC Mission or something to shorten it down.

I do think the difference between the GA and the SC will be the need for authors of different backgrounds, as I've said before, I've never defended, or raided, or participated heavily in the gameplay side of things, but I've been the co-author of a defender's liberation proposal before, by contributing heavily to the language, and teaching them some of the ins and outs of proposal campaigning. Some proposals are going to require experts in fields of NS, and some are even going to require multiple experts, in multiple fields (raiders, defenders ...oh baby, time honored traditions...).

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:07 pm

Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:I've brought up the branding problem before and was told the branding rules do not apply in the SC. I suppose I could submit a C&C with dozens of co-authors as a test case. I'll do that now.


The problem is those nations didn't co-author it, and yes I realize they're all your puppets. :)


Well, the last two aren't. Anyway, that's not the point. The point is that I listed multiple co-authors. Is that illegal in an SC proposal or do the branding rules not apply?


Find me an instance where a dozen real authors have all collectively written a piece of work together in the SC, and I might reconsider my earlier statement.


Which earlier statement?

This is just a test case to force a ruling on co-authors. It doesn't really matter who the nations are or if they actually co-authored the thing. Is it legal to list more than one co-author in an SC proposal?


Yeah but they're not co-authors, if you really want to test the waters, we need real examples....
at the moment I'm not entirely sure banning multiple co-authors similar to the GA is a good idea, sure it could leave some idiots to co-author fifty people and waste space, but theres also no ban on submitting proposals in ALL CAPS (which would be a ban on stupidity). I just think there's a strong possibility of tri-authored resolutions in the future, and until I see some real problems... well....


Forget for a second that I listed a bunch of my own puppets + DLE and Cluichstan. Let's pretend that multiple nations really did co-author that commendation. Should it be legal to list more than one co-author? If so, why? Why is more than one co-author illegal in the GA? Why should more than one be legal in the SC?


I don't know about your example of a dozen co-authors, because it seems unlikely that a dozen people could "equally" participate in the authoring of a proposal (if so -- I'd say each author did very very little to be proportional with 19 others).

But hypothetically speaking, I suppose I'd be okay with it, I prefer if they were more creative and named themselves as a Commission, Region, Committee, or WASC Mission or something to shorten it down.

I do think the difference between the GA and the SC will be the need for authors of different backgrounds, as I've said before, I've never defended, or raided, or participated heavily in the gameplay side of things, but I've been the co-author of a defender's liberation proposal before, by contributing heavily to the language, and teaching them some of the ins and outs of proposal campaigning. Some proposals are going to require experts in fields of NS, and some are even going to require multiple experts, in multiple fields (raiders, defenders ...oh baby, time honored traditions...).


A dozen co-authors is extreme, admittedly. But 3 is not out of the question. UN Labor Relations Act really should have had 3 co-authors, but the rules only allowed us to list one.

Again, why is more than one co-author illegal in the GA? And why should more than one be legal in the SC?
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:12 pm

For reference, here is the branding rule:
Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of..."). This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group.


Now, I understand perfectly well why that applies in the GA. Why shouldn't it apply in the SC?
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
Unibotian WASC Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Oct 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:15 pm

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:For reference, here is the branding rule:
Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of..."). This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group.


Now, I understand perfectly well why that applies in the GA. Why shouldn't it apply in the SC?


I believe I've already told you my answer to that, twice.

....

But hypothetically speaking, I suppose I'd be okay with it, I prefer if they were more creative and named themselves as a Commission, Region, Committee, or WASC Mission or something to shorten it down.

I do think the difference between the GA and the SC will be the need for authors of different backgrounds, as I've said before, I've never defended, or raided, or participated heavily in the gameplay side of things, but I've been the co-author of a defender's liberation proposal before, by contributing heavily to the language, and teaching them some of the ins and outs of proposal campaigning. Some proposals are going to require experts in fields of NS, and some are even going to require multiple experts, in multiple fields (raiders, defenders ...oh baby, time honored traditions...).
Last edited by Unibotian WASC Mission on Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:19 pm

Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:For reference, here is the branding rule:
Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of..."). This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group.


Now, I understand perfectly well why that applies in the GA. Why shouldn't it apply in the SC?


I believe I've already told you my answer to that, twice.

Yes, you've said that more than one person might be required to write a proposal. That's sometimes true in the GA as well, yet listing more than one co-author is illegal there. Why do you suppose that is?
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:24 pm

For what it's worth I've always thought the "one co-author rule" is a bit severe. Allowing 2 or even 3 co-authors would be more reasonable.
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
Unibotian WASC Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Oct 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:38 pm

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:For reference, here is the branding rule:
Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of..."). This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group.


Now, I understand perfectly well why that applies in the GA. Why shouldn't it apply in the SC?


I believe I've already told you my answer to that, twice.

Yes, you've said that more than one person might be required to write a proposal. That's sometimes true in the GA as well, yet listing more than one co-author is illegal there. Why do you suppose that is?


Because at some point, when the division of work becomes so thinned between "co-authors" (around 4 authors) their contributions to be noted on a GA proposal is little less than wearing a proposal like a badge -- which is one of the fallacies of bad General Assembly writers.

I wouldn't claim that no SC writer in the future of the SC will be submitting proposals for the sole purpose of having another badge of glory to cling to, sure it will happen, but where the GA and the SC differ is that the SC is dealing with issues of gameplay, and hopefully the motivation to propose a liberation proposal for example will be to liberate a region, not glory.

And as I've explained, there may be needed several authors on these liberation proposals to offer different views and to apply different knowledge from various technical backgrounds.

With glory out of the picture, its just giving credit to those who deserve it. Maybe I'm just being naive about it, but thats been the gameplay philosophy for a while, when I see badges on all of these defenders and raiders' forum posts.

Also, delegates so far have not brought up-to-vote a proposal containing a dozen co-authors, and if that becomes the case, I would suggest that over two co-authors, that a commission, raiding group, defending group or other organization be cited instead.

Oh and that reminds me, defending (or raiding) groups may want to cite themselves as an organization, which though its not that different from a think tank in the GA trying to cite themselves in a proposal, I could see the applications.
Last edited by Unibotian WASC Mission on Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Unibotian WASC Mission
Diplomat
 
Posts: 729
Founded: Oct 27, 2009
Ex-Nation

Postby Unibotian WASC Mission » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:48 pm

Oh and on that note, I've removed this line from my region's WFE..

Home to the authors of SC#6, SC#9 and the co-author of SC#6.


Glorification is for forum signatures.

User avatar
Mad Sheep Railgun
Diplomat
 
Posts: 587
Founded: Jun 27, 2009
Benevolent Dictatorship

Postby Mad Sheep Railgun » Thu Nov 26, 2009 6:52 pm

Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:
Unibotian WASC Mission wrote:
Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:For reference, here is the branding rule:
Limited branding is allowed. "Limited" means that you may list one co-author by nation name only. Example:

"Co-authored by The Most Glorious Hack"

Further branding will result in the Proposal being deleted. Don't list everyone who posted in the thread for your draft, don't list yourself, don't list your Minister Of Making Proposals, and don't post the 'pre-title' of the co-author (ie: "The Republic Of..."). This includes creating nations that have the same name as your region or group and using them to promote your region or group.


Now, I understand perfectly well why that applies in the GA. Why shouldn't it apply in the SC?


I believe I've already told you my answer to that, twice.

Yes, you've said that more than one person might be required to write a proposal. That's sometimes true in the GA as well, yet listing more than one co-author is illegal there. Why do you suppose that is?


Because at some point, when the division of work becomes so thinned between "co-authors" (around 4 authors) their contributions to be noted on a GA proposal is little less than wearing a proposal like a badge -- which is one of the fallacies of bad General Assembly writers.

I wouldn't claim that no SC writer in the future of the SC will be submitting proposals for the sole purpose of having another badge of glory to cling to, sure it will happen, but where the GA and the SC differ is that the SC is dealing with issues of gameplay, and hopefully the motivation to propose a liberation proposal for example will be to liberate a region, not glory.

And as I've explained, there may be needed several authors on these liberation proposals to offer different views and to apply different knowledge from various technical backgrounds.

With glory out of the picture, its just giving credit to those who deserve it. Maybe I'm just being naive about it, but thats been the gameplay philosophy for a while, when I see badges on all of these defenders and raiders' forum posts.

Also, delegates so far have not brought up-to-vote a proposal containing a dozen co-authors, and if that becomes the case, I would suggest that over two co-authors, that a commission, raiding group, defending group or other organization be cited instead.

Oh and that reminds me, defending (or raiding) groups may want to cite themselves as an organization, which though its not that different from a think tank in the GA trying to cite themselves in a proposal, I could see the applications.

Ah, so you believe there should be a double standard and that the SC should, again, be given special treatment? I see. Well if you're happy for the SC to continue to be the dim-witted younger sibling that's excused from having to follow rules it's OK by me.

When/if my commendation gets deleted for having too many co-authors you can ask "what then is an acceptable number of co-authors for an SC proposal?" and you'll have your ruling. I'm out of this discussion.
Watch The World Assembly, Tuesdays at 7:00 on K-SPAN

User avatar
The Most Glorious Hack
Retired Moderator
 
Posts: 2421
Founded: Mar 11, 2003
Ex-Nation

Postby The Most Glorious Hack » Fri Nov 27, 2009 1:31 am

Mad Sheep Railgun wrote:I've brought up the branding problem before and was told the branding rules do not apply in the SC. I suppose I could submit a C&C with dozens of co-authors as a test case. I'll do that now.
Best. Proposal. Ever.
Now the stars they are all angled wrong,
And the sun and the moon refuse to burn.
But I remember a message,
In a demon's hand:
"Dread the passage of Jesus, for he does not return."

-Nick Cave and the Bad Seeds, "Time Jesum Transeuntum Et Non Riverentum"



Next

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to Security Council

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

Advertisement

Remove ads