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

[Unibot III]

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

Cheers, Wrapper. Knew I liked you.

[Luna Amore]

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

Surely hornets?

[Bears Armed]

Not honey, unfortunately...

[Aclion]

Is it to late to also agree with... whoever thinks pre-staff efforts should be legal to reference?

I mean setting aside the lack of need for such a rule it's not like it is going to stop us commending authors who deserve it, even if they are editors. We'll just be less honest about why we're commending them and only the resolutions will suffer for it.

[Frisbeeteria]

I know I'm the one that opened this up for discussion, but I was never in favor of this change. I see commendations as a way to bring attention to deserving nations who might otherwise be missed by the NS public. Staff members (Mods, IEs, Mentors, and Gensec members) get plenty of attention as it is. They interact heavily with their target audiences. They are generally well known.

Yes, most of them had contributions to make prior to being asked to join the Staff, but they earned recognition by the very act of being asked to join. They get badges on their nations proclaiming their roles. They get a colored name on the forums. That's actually more than a C&C nation gets. Isn't it enough?

---

The opinions in the moderation discussion were about equally divided between the two options. This was a fairly typical 'Pro' post:

I'd be OK with people commending IEs for writing issues as long as they had some issues published before they became an IE, and any references to individual issues refer to the issues published before becoming an IE. I'm not an SC person, though, which is why I didn't get into this discussion earlier and my opinion probably shouldn't carry too much weight.

And here are representative 'Con' posts:

It's really down to two reasons:

1) Their work as an issues author is very clearly the reason why they have become an Issues Editor. Thus, it's a Commendation-by-proxy of their work as an Issues Editor. And the flip side to that is that a Condemnation of someone's issues authoring is a Condemnation of an Issues Editor's work as an Editor. It's a "this was a bad decision to make them an IE" vote. Staff members should not up for that kind of public (dis)approval vote.

2) Their work as an author overlaps with that as an Editor. IEs can now add their own issues, so even if they wrote / submitted something prior to being IEd, if it's added later, they are likely to have given input on it as a staff member. Furthermore, their issues authoring even added before being IEd may have been part of a trial. Added to that, every time someone tried to evade Rule 1 for IEs before this modification to it, they tried to use wording that could also be read as referring to their role after being IEd. "Noting that Examplestan has presented several interesting issues before national governments" -- well that can clearly refer to that which they've wrote / edited since being IEd.

The big problem here is that the type of work done before becoming an IE is similar as to the type of work after attaining the position. This unlike mods for example.

It gets into a blurry line, because the distinction between the two bodies of work is not clear, except in chronology.

[Drasnia]

-snip-

I totally understand your rationale, but where should the line be crossed. I'd be fine with a rule saying that IEs can't be C&C'd primarily for their issue work, but what if it was only mentioned as a line or two to be comprehensive?

IIRC, the first commendation attempt for Forest was pulled because it referenced issues authored by residents including folks like Ranisum (even though the issues mentioned were before he was made an IE). I feel as though that should have been allowed, but it wasn't.

What if we want to commend somebody who happens to be an IE because they've done a lot of stuff over the course of their career? Going back to Ransium again, he's done a lot to grow Forest into a burgeoning, influential region, as well as write issues and get other Forestians to start writing as well. I prefer C&Cs to be comprehensive and, if I were the author, I would want to include his issue work (but only stuff authored before he became an IE) though it would only be a small part of the actual proposal.

[Crazy girl]

I'd say that would make for a very blurry line.

[Helaw]

I know I'm the one that opened this up for discussion, but I was never in favor of this change. I see commendations as a way to bring attention to deserving nations who might otherwise be missed by the NS public. Staff members (Mods, IEs, Mentors, and Gensec members) get plenty of attention as it is. They interact heavily with their target audiences. They are generally well known.

Yes, most of them had contributions to make prior to being asked to join the Staff, but they earned recognition by the very act of being asked to join. They get badges on their nations proclaiming their roles. They get a colored name on the forums. That's actually more than a C&C nation gets. Isn't it enough?

I think there's a big difference between having a badge saying "Look! I have a job to do!" and having one that says "Look! The NS community thinks I'm cool!". A badge is not inherently a symbol of recognition, nor is it necessarily an award for achieving something.

If we're using "You already have some sort of badge" as an argument to justify not C&C'ing Editors, then why does this not apply to GenSec members? To Mentors? To Authors? Users that author WA proposals and Issues already have a badge to certify recognition for their contributions, and the best authors are well known in each community just like Editors and GenSec members are. Why can we C&C any of these users for any reason at all? Why shouldn't this extend to nations that are high on stat leaderboards? They're granted a form of recognition through holding high positions on said leaderboards. This is the problem I have with this argument; it is an artificial blurred line.

1) Their work as an issues author is very clearly the reason why they have become an Issues Editor. Thus, it's a Commendation-by-proxy of their work as an Issues Editor. And the flip side to that is that a Condemnation of someone's issues authoring is a Condemnation of an Issues Editor's work as an Editor. It's a "this was a bad decision to make them an IE" vote. Staff members should not up for that kind of public (dis)approval vote.

I half-agree, half-disagree. I agree that it could potentially become a vote that implies that an Editor is a crap author and shouldn't be an Editor as a result (Who would unironically support such a proposal?), but I disagree with authorship inherently representing Editing work. There is more to becoming an Editor than just writing Issues, and Editing work itself is obviously separate and is something that should be directly covered by Rule 1. This is something that the community knows, and it is something that people outside of the community can probably figure out via common sense. Theoretically, we could have someone who has never written an Issue before become an Editor after consistently giving excellent writing advice on GI. This is a possibility that has been discussed before.

2) Their work as an author overlaps with that as an Editor. IEs can now add their own issues, so even if they wrote / submitted something prior to being IEd, if it's added later, they are likely to have given input on it as a staff member.

They are still giving input, in this case, as the author. Members of the team often telegram the author during the Editing process (especially if it is a heavy edit), which gives non-Editors the same opportunity (not to mention the fact that one can always lend some direct advice regarding their submission to the Editors one way or another regardless). It's a convention backstage to not give much (usually any) input on edits of one's own Issues. To be fair, though, this is a convention that I have spoken out against before. I'm just noting its existence here.

If they can edit and add their own Issues, the simplest solution is to not include the ones that they are credited as being the Editor of. Self-edits exist partially due to the fact that it is objectively harder to have an Issue published as an Editor rather than as a normal user. They can act as a button to jump to the front of the queue, and I think that it is reasonable to consider this justification for restricting any mention of them in C&Cs. I do not, however, believe that this justifies ruling out every Issue authored post-Editorship, and certainly not any Issues published pre-Editorship. The author and Editor of each issue is obviously public information, so users can very easily figure out which ones are self-edits when it comes down to it.

Furthermore, their issues authoring even added before being IEd may have been part of a trial.

I don't understand the point behind this. If you mean that someone's Issue could have been used in a trial for someone else, then I fail to see how this is relevant. If you mean that someone's Issue could have been used for their own trial (i.e. "Edit your own pre-existing Issue."), then it would practically be a self-edit and shouldn't be counted anyway. If you mean that someone's writing was actually a part of a trial (i.e. "Write an issue about benches as a part of your trial."), then we don't do that anyway.

Added to that, every time someone tried to evade Rule 1 for IEs before this modification to it, they tried to use wording that could also be read as referring to their role after being IEd. "Noting that Examplestan has presented several interesting issues before national governments" -- well that can clearly refer to that which they've wrote / edited since being IEd.

I think this is a grey area that isn't nearly as heinous as others, and it's fairly tolerable. Just make sure that it is something like what you have written here rather than obviously describing Editor actions. It's made even less unreasonable if example Issues are given.

The big problem here is that the type of work done before becoming an IE is similar as to the type of work after attaining the position. This unlike mods for example.

Not really. You have authoring, you have editing, and you have self-editing. The latter two are staff actions which come as a part of the Editor package, the first isn't.

Unless, of course, the implication here is that Editors write things before and after they attain their position as Editors. This is not true. We use sign language backstage, and it is translated by a sapient machine.

[Unibot III]

If the moderators are equally divided on the rule, perhaps a (messy) compromise could be met?

For instance, grandfathering any Issue Editors for commendation prior to the precedent coming into effect.

Or lifting the rule temporarily and setting a date for when the precedent is considered "in effect."

Or alternatively, a protocol that says an editor can only be commended for non-IE issue work up to and until 1.5 years as an IE, or after 1.5 years after retirement.*

* The Candlewhisper Rule.

---

It may seem silly to go through the effort of reaching a compromise, but commendations are the SC's "bread and butter" - and the role of 'community leaders' has grown immensely (Editors, Mentors, Secretariat, Tech) which complicates Rule I a lot since the types of people we want to commend are traditionally the types of people who are recruited for these positions.

Developing an exemption system that's functional but limited seems like a compromise that could be struck. It would give SC Authors a timeline to pursue resolutions they've been working on, or intended to work on, after shock announcements / appointments. Personally that's why I like the third proposal (even though it's the most complicated.) Personally, my preference would be for the moderators to hash out the details of an agreed exemption like the third proposal (perhaps 1 year or less), but also couple it with the second proposal as an overarching exemption for everyone for a limited period of time.

[Zwangzug]

It may seem silly to go through the effort of reaching a compromise, but commendations are the SC's "bread and butter" - and the role of 'community leaders' has grown immensely (Editors, Mentors, Secretariat, Tech) which complicates Rule I a lot since the types of people we want to commend are traditionally the types of people who are recruited for these positions.

I agree with the principle in bold, but not the conclusions elsewhere in your post. It would be great to have some fair and sensible guidelines about what can and can't be included in a commendation, but not at the cost of creating needless bureaucracy for its own sake, and potentially rushing shoddy resolutions through on arbitrary deadlines.

Look at the potential Ransium commend for an example. Ransium is someone who has contributed a lot all around to various aspects of NationStates, ranging from community-building on and offsite in his region, to long-term delegacy which became a significant statistical milestone in his own time, to supporting various environmental causes through GA legislation. Without commenting on the quality of the original draft, I think a case can be made that he would be potentially worthy of a commendation without his issues work. Adding in his issues written pre-editorship would, in my view, significantly strengthen such a draft. And considering that those issues were not written for the purpose of becoming an editor, like hundreds of other issues that are added to the game and give their authors recognition on-site, I don't think that would run afoul of the intention behind rule 1. (Whereas referring to issues he's edited, either his own or others, contradicts the spirit of the law to me.)

Unibot's suggestions are not only messy, they seem misguided. We already had a grandfather precedent with "Commend Nation of Quebec." Suppose the commendations community immediately decided that NoQ was a poutine-loving jerk and didn't deserve international acclaim (sorry, it's a hypothetical); how would it be possible to repeal his commend without committing a host of issues violations? That's basically the situation we're already in when we can barely allude to anything he's done.

If we set arbitrary dates for when the precedents are/aren't in effect, I worry that that could lead to drafts rushed through for the sake of the timeline and not because they're of appropriate quality. Why 1 and 1.5 rather than 1.5 and 1 or .75 and 1.25 or (some other repeating fractions)? Arbitrariness? To get your name on a rule?

If we need to compromise, let's compromise over the actual content of the rules themselves--not some bureaucracy for the heck of it.

[Unibot III]

If we set arbitrary dates for when the precedents are/aren't in effect, I worry that that could lead to drafts rushed through for the sake of the timeline and not because they're of appropriate quality. Why 1 and 1.5 rather than 1.5 and 1 or .75 and 1.25 or (some other repeating fractions)? Arbitrariness? To get your name on a rule?

A year would be fine for a limit.

That's more than enough time to write a fine resolution. Research, drafting, vetting and proposing a resolution is about a month to three month affair, depending on how experienced and dedicated you are as a SC author.

Personally, I'd suggest,

1. A grandfathering for all Issue Authors till Jan 1 2018. (Arbitrary date, but it's ogles of time for a SC Author - and a straightforward date.)

2. From then on out, an exemption for commending non-IA issue work for Issue Authors up to and until 1 year as an IE, or after 1 year post-retirement. (Again, arbitrary but straightforward.)

Keeps things relatively straightforward after Jan. (I'll admit it's a mouthful to describe right now.) After Jan, if any new IEs are announced, as a SC Author you know you have a year to devise a commendation proposal for them if you're content on doing that before the cutoff point is reached.

I don't think repeals are an issue. It would be difficult to conceive of a repeal that isn't a straightforward Rule I violation for an Issue Editor that isn't a Rule II violation. (Although my evil may be slipping. )

___________

I'm suggesting a bureaucratic answer to break up a logjam because an exemption system will soften the blow of a tough-on-recognition approach. A tie moderator vote probably will leave us stuck with a status quo that will tangle up SC authors - that is, unless a compromise is found. It's not common that moderators back down fully once a decision has been made, but a tie suggests there's room, at least, for some compromise.

Would I prefer no rule at all? Yes, but the newbie in me who witnessed the Rule IV debates (and organized the protest group) is skeptical an outright resistance to this Rule I expansion will be successful. All I'm saying is, if moderators want to ban us from commending editors, at least give us some time to commend them - it's not as though we know who's going to become editors before they're editors.

EDIT: And Zwangy! Hi! Long time no see!

[Zwangzug]

2. From then on out, an exemption for commending non-IA issue work for Issue Authors up to and until 1 year as an IE, or after 1 year post-retirement. (Again, arbitrary but straightforward.)

When is an editor retired? When they say they are? When they stop logging in? When they CTE? When their issues get dibsed by others? What if they're lurking under a puppet?

This isn't entirely academic. Sometimes CTEd editors get to keep their masking for a while to make things easier upon (potential) return.

I'm suggesting a bureaucratic answer to break up a logjam because an exemption system will soften the blow of a tough-on-recognition approach. A tie moderator vote probably will leave us stuck with a status quo that will tangle up SC authors - that is, unless a compromise is found. It's not common that moderators back down fully once a decision has been made, but a tie suggests there's room, at least, for some compromise.

I don't entirely understand what the first sentence means? The current approach makes it tough to recognize people?

The status quo doesn't seem to "tangle people up." It might not seem to be the most fair or consistent approach, but I think it can be understood. SC writers have the ability to write to the current rules already, whether or not they want to. I think you're reading too much into things here--I don't see suggestion of "a tie" or "the moderators decide things by a one-mod, one-vote democracy" so much as "some people are for change and some aren't."

Would I prefer no rule at all? Yes, but the newbie in me who witnessed the Rule IV debates (and organized the protest group) is skeptical an outright resistance to this Rule I expansion will be successful. All I'm saying is, if moderators want to ban us from commending editors, at least give us some time to commend them - it's not as though we know who's going to become editors before they're editors.

Has NationStates ever had a rule of "we think this action is [good/bad] so here's the deal, you can only do it some of the time, that'll satisfy enough people"? Has that ever worked well?

[Bears Armed]

Has NationStates ever had a rule of "we think this action is [good/bad] so here's the deal, you can only do it some of the time, that'll satisfy enough people"? Has that ever worked well?

The pre-Influence "anti-griefing" rules?

[Consular]

I know I'm the one that opened this up for discussion, but I was never in favor of this change. I see commendations as a way to bring attention to deserving nations who might otherwise be missed by the NS public. Staff members (Mods, IEs, Mentors, and Gensec members) get plenty of attention as it is. They interact heavily with their target audiences. They are generally well known.

Yes, most of them had contributions to make prior to being asked to join the Staff, but they earned recognition by the very act of being asked to join. They get badges on their nations proclaiming their roles. They get a colored name on the forums. That's actually more than a C&C nation gets. Isn't it enough?

I just don't agree.

I guess I see becoming part of site staff as a service, not a reward for in game activity. Is that not how admin views things? Rather odd really.

Their work as an issues author is very clearly the reason why they have become an Issues Editor. Thus, it's a Commendation-by-proxy of their work as an Issues Editor.

I'm sorry but despite how I've tried I just don't really understand this part. A commendation of their issue authoring is exactly that, not a "proxy" for their mod work.

I also don't understand how the 'blurry line' argument works to exclude work that they did entirely before becoming an editor. There is a hard date of reference, the date they joined the staff, which defeats any blurriness.

Ultimately I don't quite get why there needs to be so many rules around eligibility anyway. If the community thinks someone is cool enough to commend them, why not let us?

[Helaw]

These proposed compromises fail to answer the questions that led to these circumstances arising in the first place, specifically the ones asked in Frisbeeteria's post. By the time these questions are properly and officially answered in order to clear things up, a compromise loses much of its meaning. I concur with Zwangzug; it would be better to actually reach a conclusion in terms of the ruling itself.

[Unibot III]

Well, I'm just saying we're at a position where the common authors' opinion of how the rule should fall is dramatically more laisse faire than the moderator opinion.

Receiving a "final opinion" may just give us a conclusion that satisfies no one but the mod team (I've seen it happen before enough times.)

I'd personally prefer no questions properly answered and leeway reached, then all questions answered and the rules set airtight against recognizing the work of volunteers. Because once the rules are set in*, they take generations to unwind.

* And anti-recognition conventions like these in the WA -are- usually laxed and reversed eventually. But it takes five to ten years once the original rule is set.

[Luna Amore]

If we're using "You already have some sort of badge" as an argument to justify not C&C'ing Editors, then why does this not apply to GenSec members? To Mentors? To Authors? Users that author WA proposals and Issues already have a badge to certify recognition for their contributions,

It applies to staff, so IEs, GenSec and Mentors would all be restricted after they become staff.

Author badges are simply a quantitative tally. They are just counters. C&C is about quality and community impact. Staff positions are basically site commendations of a player's actions. You are doing the thing you do so well that you have been invited to represent the site and community.

2) Their work as an author overlaps with that as an Editor. IEs can now add their own issues, so even if they wrote / submitted something prior to being IEd, if it's added later, they are likely to have given input on it as a staff member.

They are still giving input, in this case, as the author. Members of the team often telegram the author during the Editing process (especially if it is a heavy edit), which gives non-Editors the same opportunity (not to mention the fact that one can always lend some direct advice regarding their submission to the Editors one way or another regardless). It's a convention backstage to not give much (usually any) input on edits of one's own Issues. To be fair, though, this is a convention that I have spoken out against before. I'm just noting its existence here.

Editors have a backstage pass. Regular authors are in the Q&A section. Both have a communication channel, but one is much more limited and not required. I never talk to authors while I'm editing their work for example.

Furthermore, their issues authoring even added before being IEd may have been part of a trial.

I don't understand the point behind this. If you mean that someone's Issue could have been used in a trial for someone else, then I fail to see how this is relevant. If you mean that someone's Issue could have been used for their own trial (i.e. "Edit your own pre-existing Issue."), then it would practically be a self-edit and shouldn't be counted anyway. If you mean that someone's writing was actually a part of a trial (i.e. "Write an issue about benches as a part of your trial."), then we don't do that anyway.

There's no set way to become an IE.

For instance, my first five issues were written for a quasi-contest the (then) new IE team started back in December 2011. Three of those were accepted and added to the game before Sedge asked me to join the team. I had no interaction with GI before that. Those five issues are the only justification for being promoted to IE. Should that trial be considered fair game or not considering? Should someone be able to condemn me based on those five issues knowing full well that those are the basis of my IE status?

[USS Monitor]

I don't understand the point behind this. If you mean that someone's Issue could have been used in a trial for someone else, then I fail to see how this is relevant. If you mean that someone's Issue could have been used for their own trial (i.e. "Edit your own pre-existing Issue."), then it would practically be a self-edit and shouldn't be counted anyway. If you mean that someone's writing was actually a part of a trial (i.e. "Write an issue about benches as a part of your trial."), then we don't do that anyway.

There's no set way to become an IE.

For instance, my first five issues were written for a quasi-contest the (then) new IE team started back in December 2011. Three of those were accepted and added to the game before Sedge asked me to join the team. I had no interaction with GI before that. Those five issues are the only justification for being promoted to IE. Should that trial be considered fair game or not considering? Should someone be able to condemn me based on those five issues knowing full well that those are the basis of my IE status?

I don't see any harm in letting people refer to those issues in a commendation or condemnation. Banning that just seems like rules for the sake of rules, and I don't see how it serves any purpose.

[Luna Amore]

I think the more compelling question is whether or not we should get rid of Rule 1 entirely.

[Drasnia]

I think the more compelling question is whether or not we should get rid of Rule 1 entirely.

I wouldn't mind getting rid of it. It being a rule seems to be causing a lot of problems and gray area. Instead, I think we should get rid of it entirely and enforce more an informal community standards thing where we agree that we really shouldn't be C&Cing people primarily for work they've done as staff though if that work is used to help strengthen an already-drafted proposal that should be fine.

[Crazy girl]

That would just create a grey area.

[Drasnia]

That would just create a grey area.

Sorry for not being very clear.

What I was thinking would be just totally get rid of R1. It would then become the job of the community to decide when a nominee's actions are worthy of a C&C - just like now! R1 would in effect be enforced like how self commends are. They aren't illegal - an author won't have to worry about their proposal being removed - but people won't support it.

Doing this would give more freedom and peace of mind to future authors. They would be able to judge the potential success of their proposal by the reception it got in the drafting thread and not have to worry about the mods removing it for a rules violation.

EDIT: Spelling

[Crazy girl]

That is definitely not happening, approval or disapproval of staff roles are not up for popular vote.

[USS Monitor]

I think the more compelling question is whether or not we should get rid of Rule 1 entirely.

That thought had crossed my mind.

I don't think it'd cause much trouble with IEs. (If the IEs think it's a bad idea, it wouldn't take much to change my mind.)

My only concern about getting rid of it for all staff is that condemnations of mods would turn into a platform for people to rehash old rulings -- the sort of bad faith posting that causes discussion threads to get locked in the mod forum. I don't care if someone wants to go condemning mods in general terms like, "USS Monitor has destroyed many nations because her crew was offended by their flags," but I don't think we want people taking the rules-lawyering and bad faith stuff that gets shut down in the mod forum and bringing it over to the SC forum.

[Drasnia]

That is definitely not happening, approval or disapproval of staff roles are not up for popular vote.

But GenSec and RP mentors are staff roles and they're allowed to by C&Cd. Why can't editors? I understand R1 was implemented so mods couldn't get condemned for being mods, but at that point, they and admins were the only staff. Now the staff has increased. Those that have contributed the most and deserve to be commended the most are the ones snatched up to help officially.

I'm one of the few who have been commended for issue work, but I've not come close to some of those editors in how much time, effort, and passion I have for issues. While I was allowed to be commended for writing issues, those people aren't allowed to be any more. The issues that were accepted before they became editors have now become retroactively illegal to mention. It's illegal to mention something they did as players for the purpose of being a player, having nothing to do with becoming an editor. That's a problem to me. It's now not even allowable to mention it in a commendation for a region.

What really irks me is that I've been commended and other, more worthy players haven't. Because I've had a nation deleted and wasn't allowed to join the editing team even after passing the editing trial, I was allowed to be commended. Do you see the problem there? I certainly do! Only because I did some really bad stuff years ago was I allowed to be nominated. I actually see it as a bit of a mockery to the editors who pour their heart and soul into this game.

If you can't fathom the possibility of someone trying futily to condemn a moderator, at least modernize the rules so editors can be recognized for what they do. Those people are the ones that actually deserve it.