[RULING] allow IEs to be commended for pre-staff efforts

[Honeydewistania]

Issues written by Issue Editors that were published before they became editors are still a violation of rule 1.
I mean, that is a bit unfair, considering they had no help before they became issue editors.
Well, it stops me (and many others) from being able to write the proposals....

[Phydios]

Issues written by Issue Editors that were published before they became editors are still a violation of rule 1.
I mean, that is a bit unfair, considering they had no help before they became issue editors.
Well, it stops me (and many others) from being able to write the proposals....

I don't understand what you're talking about. Rule 1 in the Security Council prohibits players from commending or condemning staff (admins, moderators, issue editors, etc) for doing their job on the site. That's it. It doesn't make issues illegal, whatever you mean by that.

Issues written by Issue Editors that were published before they became editors are still a violation of rule 1.

Where did you read this sentence?

[Tinhampton]

Issues written by Issue Editors that were published before they became editors are still a violation of rule 1.

Where did you read this sentence?

From the Commend Candlewhisper Archive thread:

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.

[Ransium]

Phydios Forest's commendation was pulled the first time for mentioning my issue "Only @@LEADER@@ Can Prevent Forest Fires" which was published months before I became an IE. So it is definitive that the current status is issues written by IEs at any time in the nation's history are currently illegal due to R1.

[Drasnia]

I find it absurd that proposals can't mention issues of an editor's before they joined the editing team. They were just a regular player at that point. If I can get commended for writing issues, why can't another proposal use similar language to commend an editor if the only resolutions mentioned were when they were the same status as myself?

[Lord Dominator]

I find it absurd that proposals can't mention issues of an editor's before they joined the editing team. They were just a regular player at that point. If I can get commended for writing issues, why can't another proposal use similar language to commend an editor if the only resolutions mentioned were when they were the same status as myself?

I've been thinking this as well, except of course I have not written any issues nor have I been commended.
I can honestly see the points what mods have said regarding IEs being commended for issue writing, at least in regards to stuff published after they were made an IE.
What I can't understand (as Drasnia said) is why they can't be commended for stuff they wrote that was published before they were made an IE.
I type this all having read the other two discussions on the topic, and being well aware of why it was ruled IEs can't be commended for authoring after being made an IE.

[Frisbeeteria]

I've altered the title to more accurately reflect the topic at hand.

I can honestly see the points what mods have said regarding IEs being commended for issue writing, at least in regards to stuff published after they were made an IE.

From what I've seen, it wasn't so much "the mods" as it was Sedgistan with a little support from Luna Amore. While I agree that both of those players are in the best position to understand the situation between IEs being staff or not, we do have a policy of listening to player input. Go ahead and make your cases.

[Lord Dominator]

I've altered the title to more accurately reflect the topic at hand.

I can honestly see the points what mods have said regarding IEs being commended for issue writing, at least in regards to stuff published after they were made an IE.

From what I've seen, it wasn't so much "the mods" as it was Sedgistan with a little support from Luna Amore. While I agree that both of those players are in the best position to understand the situation between IEs being staff or not, we do have a policy of listening to player input. Go ahead and make your cases.

Thank you Fris I was just using "the mods" because I didn't actually know all who were involved, but I trust you know those involved.

Anyways, I believe Drasnia and I already made our cases/positions clear, but for recap:

I think I speak for both of us when I say that we think it is unfair that IEs cannot be commended for Issue Authoring done when they were just regular players.

[Crazy girl]

From what I've seen, it wasn't so much "the mods" as it was Sedgistan with a little support from Luna Amore.

I feel left out here...

[Phydios]

Where did you read this sentence?

From the Commend Candlewhisper Archive thread:

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.

Thanks. This discussion makes much more sense now.

[Honeydewistania]

Actually, R1 said 'as part of their role'. They did something as not part of their role, that is when they were not issue editors, so why is that still illegal?

[Consular]

I think the rules should only block staff actions they did as a staff member. Actions that were unrelated to their staff work even while they were a staff member, and any actions at all done when they aren't staff, should be fair game.

[Unibot III]

I think the rules should only block staff actions they did as a staff member. Actions that were unrelated to their staff work even while they were a staff member, and any actions at all done when they aren't staff, should be fair game.

I agree with this, indeed, this was how Rule I was always interpreted.

[Helaw]

I think the rules should only block staff actions

The problem seems to be the interpretation of what is and what is not a staff action. Editing issues is absolutely a staff action, whilst authoring issues is obviously not. However, self-edits blur that line, which is where the difficulty lies. Editors, at least from my point of view, have a harder time than any other user getting issues added to the game. While self-edits certainly muddle the situation and they shouldn't be mentioned in any resolutions anyway given that they represent a vague form of staff action, I do not think that they are grounds for outlawing the use of any and all issues-related activity, simply because they balance the difficulty of having one's own issues worked on and added. Either way, self-edits aren't always easy to get by the rest of the team.

There are limitations, principles, and norms backstage that already deal with preventing the over-saturation of the issue base with Editor-written issues. Are we seriously going to just ignore them and declare that issue authorship as a whole, assuming that the nominee is or was an Editor, is a violation of Rule 1 because of something that is deliberately limited anyway? If we're going to do that, then that removes a reason for such limits to even be around.

[Luna Amore]

Arguably, the Issues Editing badge/role is a very specific commendation for the work IEs did before they got on the team, no?

[Drasnia]

Arguably, the Issues Editing badge/role is a very specific commendation for the work IEs did before they got on the team, no?

If you continue down that line of reasoning, anybody who's had an issue accepted into the game or a World Assembly proposal passed would also be excluded for duplication as both actions also give players a badge on their nation pages.

[Luna Amore]

Arguably, the Issues Editing badge/role is a very specific commendation for the work IEs did before they got on the team, no?

If you continue down that line of reasoning, anybody who's had an issue accepted into the game or a World Assembly proposal passed would also be excluded for duplication as both actions also give players a badge on their nation pages.

I disagree. Those are to signify you've had something accepted. The Issues Editing badge implies you've reached a standard to work behind the scenes. It's not a mark of quantity but quality, like the commendation.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I think the rules should only block staff actions they did as a staff member. Actions that were unrelated to their staff work even while they were a staff member, and any actions at all done when they aren't staff, should be fair game.

I agree with this, indeed, this was how Rule I was always interpreted.

I'm going to throw my tuppence worth in and say I'm in agreement with both Consular and Uni. I cannot see the need for a blanket ban. The date a nation became an IE will be known; any issues authored before that date should be within the reach of a C&C, anything after is out.

[Bears Armed]

I agree with this, indeed, this was how Rule I was always interpreted.

I'm going to throw my tuppence worth in and say I'm in agreement with both Consular and Uni. I cannot see the need for a blanket ban. The date a nation became an IE will be known; any issues authored before that date should be within the reach of a C&C, anything after is out.

I also support this.
(Hokay, I know , "Nationstates is not a democracy"... but, anyhows...)

[Helaw]

If you continue down that line of reasoning, anybody who's had an issue accepted into the game or a World Assembly proposal passed would also be excluded for duplication as both actions also give players a badge on their nation pages.

I disagree. Those are to signify you've had something accepted. The Issues Editing badge implies you've reached a standard to work behind the scenes. It's not a mark of quantity but quality, like the commendation.

To be fair, that line of reasoning would exempt RP Mentors and the GA Secretariat from C&Cs also, seeing as they needed to display a certain level of proficiency before attaining their roles.

I also disagree with the notion that a badge for having a proposal passed or an issue accepted represents quantity rather than quality. We don't just accept crap issues about declaring war on mayonnaise, and the WA voter base isn't about to vote in favour of your badly-written ban on specific kinds of sauces. Writing issues requires a certain degree of creative talent and writing expertise, and you are granted a badge to recognise your work. "Not just anyone can do [x]" seems to be both a reason for and against having C&Cs exist at all.

[Luna Amore]

I disagree. Those are to signify you've had something accepted. The Issues Editing badge implies you've reached a standard to work behind the scenes. It's not a mark of quantity but quality, like the commendation.

To be fair, that line of reasoning would exempt RP Mentors and the GA Secretariat from C&Cs also, seeing as they needed to display a certain level of proficiency before attaining their roles.

I also disagree with the notion that a badge for having a proposal passed or an issue accepted represents quantity rather than quality. We don't just accept crap issues about declaring war on mayonnaise, and the WA voter base isn't about to vote in favour of your badly-written ban on specific kinds of sauces. Writing issues requires a certain degree of creative talent and writing expertise, and you are granted a badge to recognise your work. "Not just anyone can do [x]" seems to be both a reason for and against having C&Cs exist at all.

I meant those badges literally tally the quantity of issues accepted/props passed.

[Wrapper]

I agree with this, indeed, this was how Rule I was always interpreted.

I'm going to throw my tuppence worth in and say I'm in agreement with both Consular and Uni. I cannot see the need for a blanket ban. The date a nation became an IE will be known; any issues authored before that date should be within the reach of a C&C, anything after is out.

This makes the most sense to me, as it eliminates the possibility of commending for something that may have included any self-editing.

[Helaw]

To be fair, that line of reasoning would exempt RP Mentors and the GA Secretariat from C&Cs also, seeing as they needed to display a certain level of proficiency before attaining their roles.

I also disagree with the notion that a badge for having a proposal passed or an issue accepted represents quantity rather than quality. We don't just accept crap issues about declaring war on mayonnaise, and the WA voter base isn't about to vote in favour of your badly-written ban on specific kinds of sauces. Writing issues requires a certain degree of creative talent and writing expertise, and you are granted a badge to recognise your work. "Not just anyone can do [x]" seems to be both a reason for and against having C&Cs exist at all.

I meant those badges literally tally the quantity of issues accepted/props passed.

Of course, but that does not diminish the fact that they signify a certain level of skill.

I'm going to throw my tuppence worth in and say I'm in agreement with both Consular and Uni. I cannot see the need for a blanket ban. The date a nation became an IE will be known; any issues authored before that date should be within the reach of a C&C, anything after is out.

This makes the most sense to me, as it eliminates the possibility of commending for something that may have included any self-editing.

For that, can't we just say "You can't mention self-edits"? It seems strange to rule out many published issues on the basis of them maybe being self-edits.

[Unibot III]

Any word on this from ye higher powers?

[Wrapper]

I'll shake up the hornet's nest and see what comes out.