[MOD CLARIFICATION?]Commending GenSec

[United Massachusetts]

Can Members of the Secretariat Be Commended for Resolution Authorship?
Request for a Legality Ruling

As I'm sure you know, Issues Editors are unable to be commended for work done in their official capacity as site staff-- namely, editing issues. The precedent for this is set by a ruling on a commendation of Candlewhisper Archive, in which, Sedgistan ruled the following:

"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."

The question now becomes: Can one commend a member of GenSec (ie. Christian Democrats) for World Assembly authorship, or is this considered part of their role as site staff?

[Crazy girl]

They can be commended (or condemned) for WA authorship (at present at least), just not for their work as a GenSec member.

[Consular]

Is that not a tad inconsistent with the ruling about issues editors, who basically cannot be commended for anything to do with issues now? That ruling had made me mildly cautious.

[Frisbeeteria]

It's a fine line, but I'm with CG on this one.

GenSec is mostly a player-based advisory board, with limited ability to affect the game. Issue Editors are effectively junior admins at this point, with a great deal of access to fundamental aspects of the game code. IEs can change the code behind issues (conceivably even their own, though for ethics reasons we don't usually do that). GenSec can only deny proposal authors access to the queue. Their contributions as resolution authors are not impacted by their role as GenSec members.

[Helaw]

It's a fine line, but I'm with CG on this one.

GenSec is mostly a player-based advisory board, with limited ability to affect the game. Issue Editors are effectively junior admins at this point, with a great deal of access to fundamental aspects of the game code. IEs can change the code behind issues (conceivably even their own, though for ethics reasons we don't usually do that). GenSec can only deny proposal authors access to the queue. Their contributions as resolution authors are not impacted by their role as GenSec members.

I'm not sure about the relevancy of being able to alter the code behind issues, unless we are using it as a measuring stick for determining how much of a 'member of staff' an Editor is. To be fair, this is something that is done as a part of the team-effort of issues editing, which erodes the idea of an individual having power over the game; checks and balances in a basic form, with mod oversight preventing shenanigans.

From my point of view, there were two big pieces of reasoning behind the illegality of 'Commend CWA':

• Editors can self-edit. This leads to Editors being able to promote their own issues.
• No member of staff should be placed even higher above the average player through a commendation.

For the first point, declaring a proposal legal is a team effort on GenSec's part, and adding an issue is a team effort on the Editing team's part. Individuals from each group can propel their own work (GenSec ruling their own proposals legal is a possibility, as are self-edits on the Editing team, with both having team oversight in the end regardless). Because of this possibility, I feel that one should not be able to commend members of GenSec for authoring GA resolutions if one cannot commend members of the Editing team for authoring issues.

The difficulty with the second point is that no member of staff should be commended for any reason ever, else you start to have staff be commended anyway but for unrelated things. You could argue that these things are still achievable by others (then again, you can say that for anything on NS), but that does not prevent the elevation of the individual even further beyond that of the average player. I still stand by what I said in the Commend CWA thread, but I understand the principles that the moderators wish to adhere to. A grey area is not something that I personally think we should have here.

[Bears Armed]

For the first point, declaring a proposal legal is a team effort on GenSec's part, and adding an issue is a team effort on the Editing team's part. Individuals from each group can propel their own work (GenSec ruling their own proposals legal is a possibility

However, whereas the Issue Editors might be free to accept or reject submitted issues as they choose, GenSec decisions have to be based on a posted set of rules & on citing precedents that clarified points in those... and the experience of such matters which was a major factor in the GenSec members' selection means that their proposals (which, unlike a lot of would-be authors, they normally draft in the GA forum where other people can point out potential problems too...) usually are 'legal'.
And even if enough members of GenSec did conspire to let a really 'illegal' proposal through, there's a system whereby other players can also publicly raise legality challenges... which would mean that the conspiracy would either have to break up, with most of its members declaring the proposal illegal (and the one who was that proposal's author recused from voting), or would place itself at risk of dismissal from GenSec by the Mods...

[Helaw]

For the first point, declaring a proposal legal is a team effort on GenSec's part, and adding an issue is a team effort on the Editing team's part. Individuals from each group can propel their own work (GenSec ruling their own proposals legal is a possibility

However, whereas the Issue Editors might be free to accept or reject submitted issues as they choose, GenSec decisions have to be based on a posted set of rules & on citing precedents that clarified points in those... and the experience of such matters which was a major factor in the GenSec members' selection means that their proposals (which, unlike a lot of would-be authors, they normally draft in the GA forum where other people can point out potential problems too...) usually are 'legal'.
And even if enough members of GenSec did conspire to let a really 'illegal' proposal through, there's a system whereby other players can also publicly raise legality challenges... which would mean that the conspiracy would either have to break up, with most of its members declaring the proposal illegal (and the one who was that proposal's author recused from voting), or would place itself at risk of dismissal from GenSec by the Mods...

Editors go by a set of rules regarding submissions, albeit largely unspoken. Has the topic been dealt with before? Is an issue written even vaguely well (occasionally irrelevant)? Even then, Editors are to report all deletions from the pool of workable issues to the rest of the team, which usually prevents any absurd deletions; just like GA legality, it is a matter of viewpoint based on a fundamental set of principles and precedents. Either way, Editors are going to notice if a good issue that was drafted on GI inexplicably disappears. Editors don't delete submissions just because they can't be arsed making it better, they delete them if there is virtually no chance of them making the cut without becoming something that the Editor practically wrote themselves, or if it is a duplicate of an old subject matter that has been dealt with before.

However, I am not talking about the rejection of standard submissions, I am talking about propelling one's one through initiating a self-edit. An individual Editor can bring their own issue to the forefront of the editing process but will still have to get by a number of other Editors (even more than usual), and an individual member of GenSec can mark their own proposal legal but will still have to get by the rest of the team; after all, if every case of legality was clean-cut and with an obvious objective answer, why bother with GenSec at all?

[Bears Armed]

I am talking about propelling one's one through initiating a self-edit.

The only time when editing is possible for WA proposals is before they are submitted, which any author can do.
GenSec doesn't have any power to alter proposals that have been submitted, so its members can't improve their own proposals' chances by doing the sort of extra 'self-edit' that you're apparently thinking of...

[Helaw]

I am talking about propelling one's one through initiating a self-edit.

The only time when editing is possible for WA proposals is before they are submitted, which any author can do.
GenSec doesn't have any power to alter proposals that have been submitted, so its members can't improve their own proposals' chances by doing the sort of extra 'self-edit' that you're apparently thinking of...

I did not write that part clearly enough. I was referring to Editors in that sentence, leading on from the previous paragraph.

[Frisbeeteria]

Helaw, I see your point, but I think we're going to stick with this ruling for the moment. The mods can see the back end of what both teams are doing. Crazy Girl and I are both very familiar with both roles. Let's halt this before we accidentally break the operational security requirements of your roles.

[Crazy girl]

The biggest difference here, I think, is how each group is viewed and how roles will develop.

Issues Editors are considered staff more or less, with special access and responsibilities.

GenSec members are still players, and I think the idea was that their rules would develop eventually separately from Moderation, as a player initiative (and eventually a player-selected council?).

And yes, I did poke Sedge for his opinion on this as well.

Sedge says (paraphrased): Issues editors can write and add their own issues to the game, giving them far more power in the game that any other player.
GenSec members generally shouldn't be ruling on their own proposals and they certainly do not have the power to just stick their proposals straight into the game as such.