[PASSED] Commend Candlewhisper Archive

[Helaw]

If people are generally happy with the proposal in its current state, it will be submitted soon.

[Abhichandra]

If people are generally happy with the proposal in its current state, it will be submitted soon.

I'm happy with it!

[Tinhampton]

Helaw has just submitted this.

[Helaw]

Helaw has just submitted this.

Oi, I was just about to post about that!

The proposal can be found here.

[Crazy girl]

Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.

I think you missed this. Deleted for rule 1.

[Drasnia]

Can we get a clarification of how much of it was legal?

I'm guessing that the issues that were listed were legal as they were published before he became an editor but using the number 13 violates rule 1 as some of those were published after he became an editor.

The line "Further impressed that, on numerous occasions, Candlewhisper Archive has sought to refine the writings of other nations regarding these political issues in order to make them more coherent and interesting," is problematic. This can be taken as him editing issues or it can be taken as helping people draft in GI - both of which violate R1 I would think.

And was the Observing line illegal as well?

[Helaw]

Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.

I think you missed this. Deleted for rule 1.

The post of mine that Todd links to is quite an old one and probably needs clarifying. Issues Editing (as an Issues Editor) is something you cannot cite in a resolution at all, due to Rule 1. Editing done by a regular player (e.g. as feedback in Got Issues) can be cited.

Generally issues authoring is something that you can commend for. However, recent policy changes in the editing team that give staff members more freedom to add their own issues means that issues authoring by Issues Editors is almost a staff function now.

Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.

2 of the 13 issues that CWA has authored have been edited by him, leaving 11 that he has authored outwith self-edits. Because of this, I believe that his non-editing contributions are still very much noteworthy, and his constant help in the GI forum is not something that is explicitly demanded of him as an Editor.

If a large portion of an Editor's authored issues are self-edits, I believe that is a valid situation for a commendation to be illegal if it cites them. However, I also believe that if an Editor's issues are largely non-self-edited and their contributions reach further than editing / authoring to a fair extent, then it should be perfectly reasonable to commend them. Because of the nature of self-edits and how they still require the input and approval of the team (to a larger extent than normal edits, naturally), it may be reasonable to set a hard cap of [x]% of an Editor's issues being self-edited before that can no longer be used as an argument in favour of commending them; leaving only GI contributions and any other things. Perhaps I'm just waffling.

These were my thoughts on that. No mod clarified further with certainty when multiple players asked about the nature of Sedge's ruling, leading to the confusion. My apologies.

The line "Further impressed that, on numerous occasions, Candlewhisper Archive has sought to refine the writings of other nations regarding these political issues in order to make them more coherent and interesting," is problematic. This can be taken as him editing issues or it can be taken as helping people draft in GI - both of which violate R1 I would think.

Wasn't its intention when I originally wrote it, but I acknowledged how it could be seen that way.

[Aclion]

snip

Have you submitted a GHR for this yet?

[Sedgistan]

The Compendium has been updated to make crystal clear that Rule 1 covers any issues-related actions done by Issues Editors, even if they could have been done by regular players too, and even if some of the actions were done when not an Issues Editor.

I'm aware that a member of the Issues team has a Commendation from over a year ago that cites some issues-related contributions. That would obviously have to be treated differently should someone wish to repeal it, or it would be effectively un-repealable.

[Australian rePublic]

Oh come on. It says you can't nominate a staff member for their job. I was told not to do that

[Helaw]

Oh come on. It says you can't nominate a staff member for their job. I was told not to do that

Aussie, I don't know why you dug this up just to try and criticise me.

The proposal was not about CWA's job. It never was. It was about his authorship of Issues, something that is inherently not expected as a part of his job.

The point is moot, Sedge made a ruling. Case closed.

[Unibot III]

The post of mine that Todd links to is quite an old one and probably needs clarifying. Issues Editing (as an Issues Editor) is something you cannot cite in a resolution at all, due to Rule 1. Editing done by a regular player (e.g. as feedback in Got Issues) can be cited.

Generally issues authoring is something that you can commend for. However, recent policy changes in the editing team that give staff members more freedom to add their own issues means that issues authoring by Issues Editors is almost a staff function now.

Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.

Sedge - is it possible that we might just rewrite Rule 1 to not include non-moderators? The real intention of that rule was to block condemnations of moderators for moderation activities and stop people from patting the backs of moderators for ... essentially doing what moderation entails.

Since Rule 1 was put in place we've continue to extend non-moderation staff: RP mentors, Issue Editors, Tech support and now the WA Secretariat. The latter even has a quasi-roleplay element to it. In these cases, the volunteer work is blurred with their community contributions - and this severely limits the number of players commendable for their community contributions. It's generally the big community leaders (the people most likely to be nominated) that get tapped for community roles (like mentors, editors.) So it's kind of weird to have a commendation system where the people most likely to be nominated are excluded. It's also a system that favours gameplay, since they're the only community in NS without staff-like roles - our leading players aren't being excluded in the same manner.

In my mind, Rule 1 should apply only to community contributions that other players cannot provide - nobody but moderators can moderate. But anyone is allowed to roleplay and mentor other roleplayers, anyone (above 500 pop) can write and edit issues, anybody can help the site admins with tech advice and anybody can draft resolutions and work in the WA there. So regardless of your title, you should be available to be commended for your work in an NS community.

I have a feeling we're extending a rule to the point of absurdity. It should be limited to moderators as it was intended.

[Aclion]

snip

Agreed.
Though, just to be pedantic, only issue editors can edit issues, the rest of us can only provide suggestions in drafts.

[USS Monitor]

snip

Agreed.
Though, just to be pedantic, only issue editors can edit issues, the rest of us can only provide suggestions in drafts.

Some mods can also edit issues.

[Luna Amore]

The post of mine that Todd links to is quite an old one and probably needs clarifying. Issues Editing (as an Issues Editor) is something you cannot cite in a resolution at all, due to Rule 1. Editing done by a regular player (e.g. as feedback in Got Issues) can be cited.

Generally issues authoring is something that you can commend for. However, recent policy changes in the editing team that give staff members more freedom to add their own issues means that issues authoring by Issues Editors is almost a staff function now.

Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.

Sedge - is it possible that we might just rewrite Rule 1 to not include non-moderators? The real intention of that rule was to block condemnations of moderators for moderation activities and stop people from patting the backs of moderators for ... essentially doing what moderation entails.

Since Rule 1 was put in place we've continue to extend non-moderation staff: RP mentors, Issue Editors, Tech support and now the WA Secretariat. The latter even has a quasi-roleplay element to it. In these cases, the volunteer work is blurred with their community contributions - and this severely limits the number of players commendable for their community contributions. It's generally the big community leaders (the people most likely to be nominated) that get tapped for community roles (like mentors, editors.) So it's kind of weird to have a commendation system where the people most likely to be nominated are excluded. It's also a system that favours gameplay, since they're the only community in NS without staff-like roles - our leading players aren't being excluded in the same manner.

In my mind, Rule 1 should apply only to community contributions that other players cannot provide - nobody but moderators can moderate. But anyone is allowed to roleplay and mentor other roleplayers, anyone (above 500 pop) can write and edit issues, anybody can help the site admins with tech advice and anybody can draft resolutions and work in the WA there. So regardless of your title, you should be available to be commended for your work in an NS community.

I have a feeling we're extending a rule to the point of absurdity. It should be limited to moderators as it was intended.

Except they are game staff?

Not neccesarily; "game staff" is whatever we consider game staff.

Perhaps the distinction is that these players aren't enforcing the rules or running the system, they're helping to contribute to the game's activities (issues, roleplay).

My gut says that what Luna Amore has been doing with issues is praiseworthy and something that should be open for commendation -- my only explanation of why I differentiate Luna's actions from mod and admin staff is that their contributions have been to the game's cultural activities, as opposed to simply enforcing and maintaining the structure of the game. Does that make sense?

It's a philosophical exploration of what Rule 1 is really trying to prohibit.

On the other hand, perhaps Rule 1's basis is negative in a sense: we wouldn't want someone condemned for their actions as a moderator, admin or issue editor or trainers -- and because it'd be weird to ban condemning them for it, but allowing them to be commended for it... inadvertently Rule 1 covers both the commendation and condemnation of staff activities. In which, it's easy to identify issue editors as staff on the basis we wouldn't want to see anyone condemned for editing issues.

---

EDIT: My last argument has me convinced, so I'm going to agree with Sedge and say Rule 1 should apply for Issue Editors, because it'd be really bad to see someone condemned for contributing to the game as an Issue Editor (e.g., "EERG, SIROCCO WHY U EDIT MY ISSUE LIKE THAT???").

Unibot, argue against past Unibot!

[Unibot III]

Unibot, argue against past Unibot!

For better or for worse, thinking is just a fancy word for changing your mind. In a way, I'm not really contradicting my earlier comment. I'm suggesting a clearer test for Rule I interpretation which leads to a 'grandfathered' situation for some of Candlewhisper Archive's history - as it would for many staff. Your work as Issue Editor would still be blocked from commendation/condemnation but what's changed is "your work as Issue Editor" would be defined more clearly.

You can tell from my comment on your commendation that I was not sure then and only drifting back and forth on the Rule I interpretation. On the one hand, I could see a clear distinction between mod/admin staff and Issue Editors. On the other hand, we wouldn't want to see Issue Editors condemned for, say, editing a guy's issue erroneously.

Two things have changed though since that comment:

1. There's been significant growth of 'secondary' staff: Issue Editors, Mentors, WA Staff, Tech. Now it seems like every commendable player is working with the site in some capacity.

2. Now Rule I is being extended to applying to Issue Editors for actions available to all players (i.g., writing an issue.) It's only a matter of time before we can't commend WA Staff for writing resolutions or offering assistance to resolution authors, or roleplay assistance and participation in the case of mentors, or gameplay activity in the case of Tech.

The reason for my comment to Sedge is I'm wondering if it's not worth the trouble: whether, that is, we should just reinterpret Rule I as applying only to activity available to every player. In this case, you wouldn't be allowed to commend, say, WA Staff for writing important rulings, but you could commend them for offering assistance on resolutions.

____________________

In the context of Candlewhisper Archive, if we were to determine Rule I did cover resolutions now for Issue Editors because their self-editing powers gives them an "unfair" advantage, Candlewhisper Archive's past work prior to the change should be "grandfathered." Same goes for any future Issue Editor: if they've written issues prior to becoming an Issue Editor, they should be commendable for those issues because they had no such advantage in their passage.

In the context of Northrop Grumman, Rule I would not cover his work on the Dark theme. Since any player can build a skin and propose its addition to the game, theoretically. This reinterpretation would, in my opinion, bring the SC closer to the precedent set by "Commend Tiago Silva" which allowed Tiago Silva to be commended for creating the default nation flags. I can't see where there's a reasonable distinction in terms of Rule I between Northrop Grumman and Tiago Silva's contributions. The only major hurdle to a Northrop Grumman commendation ought to be Rule IV - which is tough enough.

[Helaw]

In the context of Candlewhisper Archive, if we were to determine Rule I did cover resolutions now for Issue Editors because their self-editing powers gives them an "unfair" advantage, Candlewhisper Archive's past work prior to the change should be "grandfathered."

I personally don't believe that it grants an unfair advantage. It has been deliberately designed backstage to be a rare and demanding occurrence (one self-edit out of every ten edits), and they require a higher degree of team approval than normal edits to be added to the game. This outweighs the fact that Editors can work on their own Issues and choose them specifically; If an Issue is good enough to be worked on by a different Editor anyway, then the edit will likely be approved of by a greater number of Editors, and meet less resistance than it otherwise would when it comes to being added to the game. A horrible staff Issue isn't going to be edited by someone else, nor is it likely to make it into the game - much like normal submissions. If self-edits had no such limits or stigma, then I would completely agree that it could be considered unfair.

It is objectively easier to have a good submission added if you are any other player than it is if you are an Editor. This is the reason why there are over a hundred very high-quality issues sitting in the Staff folder, untouched. While self-edits shouldn't necessarily be something that you can mention in a commendation when it comes to naming Issues, they certainly shouldn't be the catalyst for ruling that you can't commend Editors at all for anything to do with Issues. Furthermore, the idea of a "You edit my Issue, I edit yours," deal backstage is completely out of the question, and it is explicitly requested that Editors that receive such a request report it immediately. This removes another element of potential unfairness.

[Unibot III]

In the context of Candlewhisper Archive, if we were to determine Rule I did cover resolutions now for Issue Editors because their self-editing powers gives them an "unfair" advantage, Candlewhisper Archive's past work prior to the change should be "grandfathered."

I personally don't believe that it grants an unfair advantage. It has been deliberately designed backstage to be a rare and demanding occurrence (one self-edit out of every ten edits), and they require a higher degree of team approval than normal edits to be added to the game. This outweighs the fact that Editors can work on their own Issues and choose them specifically; If an Issue is good enough to be worked on by a different Editor anyway, then the edit will likely be approved of by a greater number of Editors, and meet less resistance than it otherwise would when it comes to being added to the game. A horrible staff Issue isn't going to be edited by someone else, nor is it likely to make it into the game - much like normal submissions. If self-edits had no such limits or stigma, then I would completely agree that it could be considered unfair.

It is objectively easier to have a good submission added if you are any other player than it is if you are an Editor. This is the reason why there are over a hundred very high-quality issues sitting in the Staff folder, untouched. While self-edits shouldn't necessarily be something that you can mention in a commendation when it comes to naming Issues, they certainly shouldn't be the catalyst for ruling that you can't commend Editors at all for anything to do with Issues. Furthermore, the idea of a "You edit my Issue, I edit yours," deal backstage is completely out of the question, and it is explicitly requested that Editors that receive such a request report it immediately. This removes another element of potential unfairness.

That sounds reasonable, I'm just saying, regardless, there shouldn't be any reason why you couldn't commend Candlewhisper Archive for issues written prior to this change.

[Helaw]

Following this ruling, this draft will be returning. I have made a fair few changes, and would appreciate constructive criticism.

[Willania Imperium]

Well, seeing the positive feedback you've got and the draft itself, I say it's worthy. I SUPPORT.

[Fauxia]

I don't know about this, I like CWA (and don't want to be on his bad side when I submit an issue ), but is writing a lot of issues and doing nothing else worth a commendation? (Feel free to say yes)

NOTE: I'm not saying CWA hasn't done anything else, but the current proposal doesn't mention anything else.

It'll probably pass, unless the delegates don't vote for it. If it's clearly going to pass I'll probably vote against. Won't campaign against, that isn't worth it.

[Lord Dominator]

Full Support from me, even while I wish that other contributions of Candle's could be mentioned

[Helaw]

This has (finally) been submitted again.

Only took me a few months to get around to it!

[Unibot III]

This has (finally) been submitted again.

Only took me a few months to get around to it!

Good luck!

[Europe and Oceania]

We oppose this.