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

[USS Monitor]

So... A possibility that was suggested backstage: keep the rule as is for current staff, but allow former staff to be commended/condemned for their work after they've stepped down.

Was not originally my idea, but I think it's the best of the "middle ground" ideas I've heard so far.

[Drasnia]

So... A possibility that was suggested backstage: keep the rule as is for current staff, but allow former staff to be commended/condemned for their work after they've stepped down.

Was not originally my idea, but I think it's the best of the "middle ground" ideas I've heard so far.

The problem is settling for a "middle ground" isn't at all productive. Whatever ends up being decided - whether to change R1 or keep it as it is - is going to be fairly permanent. Settling is counter-productive. We need a decisive resolution to the interpretation of R1.

And this middle ground doesn't make any sense. It allows for commending people for actions they did as staff. That seems to entirely contradict the intent of R1. A lot of the time, if someone no longer is site staff, they've CTE'd and thus can't be targeted by a C&C. The game only allows targeting active nations. In effect, this middle ground only seeks to appease people like myself while doing effectively nothing.

I firmly believe that the purpose of C&Cs isn't (dis)honoring a player; the purpose is to give the international community examples of what we believe is good and bad behavior. Commends can bring attention to areas of the game that don't get much most of the time. For a community that affects nearly every player, Got Issues is criminally underrepresented. We have made tremendous strides in the past two or three years because finally we got some activity. It is an absolute shame that we can't recognize the many contributions some players have made because they are now editors.

By the current rule's interpretation, we are able to C&C RP mentors and GenSec members, but not issue editors. GenSec members can decide to change the rules of the GA. They have tremendous game-changing powers but they're still able to be C&Cd. Yet editors aren't. Work editors did while still players becomes retroactively illegal once they join the team. How does that make any logical sense?

That also brings me to my next point. The GA has moved to being almost entirely community-driven: moderators no longer rule on legality and only in extremely rare cases remove illegal proposals. That has become GenSec's job. Why can't the SC adopt an approach more similar in spirit? I'm not advocating for an SC-equivalent to GenSec. What I am advocating for is giving players more say in what is and isn't acceptable.

I am not willing to believe that someone who would try to condemn a moderator for doing their job would ever be able to successfully draft a proposal, get it to vote, and pass it. We already have too high of standards. Most of the power in the WA is in the hands of a few delegates, and these delegates are bound by regional laws (or at least have advisers who are better versed in WA affairs) to vote with their region. These regions have many players who have too much respect for this venerable institution to let it be disrespected by such spurious and stupid bills. Any attempt that ever made it to the floor would be inevitably squashed by GCR delegates.

[USS Monitor]

So... A possibility that was suggested backstage: keep the rule as is for current staff, but allow former staff to be commended/condemned for their work after they've stepped down.

Was not originally my idea, but I think it's the best of the "middle ground" ideas I've heard so far.

The problem is settling for a "middle ground" isn't at all productive. Whatever ends up being decided - whether to change R1 or keep it as it is - is going to be fairly permanent. Settling is counter-productive. We need a decisive resolution to the interpretation of R1.

And this middle ground doesn't make any sense. It allows for commending people for actions they did as staff. That seems to entirely contradict the intent of R1. A lot of the time, if someone no longer is site staff, they've CTE'd and thus can't be targeted by a C&C. The game only allows targeting active nations. In effect, this middle ground only seeks to appease people like myself while doing effectively nothing.

I firmly believe that the purpose of C&Cs isn't (dis)honoring a player; the purpose is to give the international community examples of what we believe is good and bad behavior. Commends can bring attention to areas of the game that don't get much most of the time. For a community that affects nearly every player, Got Issues is criminally underrepresented. We have made tremendous strides in the past two or three years because finally we got some activity. It is an absolute shame that we can't recognize the many contributions some players have made because they are now editors.

By the current rule's interpretation, we are able to C&C RP mentors and GenSec members, but not issue editors. GenSec members can decide to change the rules of the GA. They have tremendous game-changing powers but they're still able to be C&Cd. Yet editors aren't. Work editors did while still players becomes retroactively illegal once they join the team. How does that make any logical sense?

That also brings me to my next point. The GA has moved to being almost entirely community-driven: moderators no longer rule on legality and only in extremely rare cases remove illegal proposals. That has become GenSec's job. Why can't the SC adopt an approach more similar in spirit? I'm not advocating for an SC-equivalent to GenSec. What I am advocating for is giving players more say in what is and isn't acceptable.

I am not willing to believe that someone who would try to condemn a moderator for doing their job would ever be able to successfully draft a proposal, get it to vote, and pass it. We already have too high of standards. Most of the power in the WA is in the hands of a few delegates, and these delegates are bound by regional laws (or at least have advisers who are better versed in WA affairs) to vote with their region. These regions have many players who have too much respect for this venerable institution to let it be disrespected by such spurious and stupid bills. Any attempt that ever made it to the floor would be inevitably squashed by GCR delegates.

Personally, I don't see a compelling reason why rule 1 needs to apply to editors. However, other people seem to have other points of view on that. I'll leave it to them to address that part of your post, if they're so inclined.

The thinking behind allowing C&C for former staff, but not current staff, was that if someone has stepped down and is no longer in a position of authority, then commending them can't be construed as an attempt to curry favor.

The problem with C&C of mods, at least from my point of view, is not whether the resolution passes. All it does if it passes is stick a badge on your nation page, and I really don't care about the badge. The problem is what people will post in the forum threads discussing the resolution. Discussion threads in the Moderation forum sometimes have to get shut down due to bad faith posting. If someone drafts a proposal to condemn a mod, even if your average SC player thinks it's crap and the proposal has no chance of passing, it's likely to attract that same type of unhelpful discussion with rules-lawyering, misinformation, rehashing old rulings, etc., etc.

But that is specifically about mods, and I don't think it would be such a problem for other site staff.

[Unibot III]

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

Now that's an interesting question.

I mean, prior to this messy debate about IEs, Rule I was always the boring rule. It only applied to moderators and site administrations. It rarely if ever came up as an issue. Now it's an issue in commending most of the game's leading community players. The convention change has resulted in expanding the scope of Rule I to 40+ other individuals (and it's probably not done growing.)

Rule I did start to get more complicated though when the moderators (really quite arbitrarily) decided some contributions to the site appearance were Rule I compliant and others were not. That's a decision that never made a lick of sense, no matter how much spin Sedge puts on it, dammit!

It's an especially interesting question, though, Luna, because very little precedents in the SC rely on Rule I; actually none do. Whereas, say, getting rid of Rule II would be chaos (most of the precedent list depends on Rule II. It's a mega rule.) And as time has gone on - and Rule I has been expanded to include site contributors, its expansion has made Rule I into a pretty nasty little bugger to try to interpret.

Perhaps one could say Rule I has become more trouble than it was once worth.

The immeadite consequences of abolishing Rule I would be:

• Site staff could be commended for work they've done as staff, if Rule IV compliant.
• Site staff could be condemned for work they've done as staff, if Rule IV compliant.

I would have expected to see something like "Condemn Mallorea and Riva" to have appeared during the 'Liberate Haven' debate. Maybe a condemnation during the Rule IV controversy (although during the time, unprecedentedly, a gag-rule was placed on resolutions related Rule IV - which gives you a sense of how heated crap got.)

I'd also expect to see commendations pop up for folks like Euroslavia, Jenrak, and Arch, (as well as Sirocco if he were still playing) whose roles as moderators have often been blurred with their roles in certain communities.

Personally, I don't have a problem with that, however. I think it'd open up C&Cs to situations where moderators are expanding their role as moderators to include community leadership (IE, grey areas) - and in cases where their actions have been perceived to be politicizing the role of 'moderator.'

Also, I'd like to see Northrop-Grumman commended.

And it'd be fucking hilarious to have Rule II, Rule II, Rule IV and no Rule I. MAKE IT HAPPEN. (And if they were to rename the rules, the 3WB would have been successful after all these years in getting rid of Rule IV - which is, in itself, a helluva accomplishment.)

[Zwangzug]

I'd also expect to see commendations pop up for folks like Euroslavia, Jenrak, and Arch, (as well as Sirocco if he were still playing) whose roles as moderators have often been blurred with their roles in certain communities.

For the record, "Commend Alasdair I Frosticus" (an Archregimancy puppet) was submitted twice (on the strength of his sports roleplaying and general debating, nothing to do with moderator actions) and got dozens of approvals each time, but failed to make quorum. I don't think "and being a moderator" would have helped it any, even if phrased as "and being a valuable and recognized community leader." I assume that was a legal precedent, though?

[Unibot III]

I'd also expect to see commendations pop up for folks like Euroslavia, Jenrak, and Arch, (as well as Sirocco if he were still playing) whose roles as moderators have often been blurred with their roles in certain communities.

For the record, "Commend Alasdair I Frosticus" (an Archregimancy puppet) was submitted twice (on the strength of his sports roleplaying and general debating, nothing to do with moderator actions) and got dozens of approvals each time, but failed to make quorum. I don't think "and being a moderator" would have helped it any, even if phrased as "and being a valuable and recognized community leader." I assume that was a legal precedent, though?

Rule I is more pertinent in cases like the RP Mods and Sirocco, yes.

[Razil States]

Should they do away with Rule 1, I can see people abusing it to lash out at Mods, but I don't see anyone abusing it regarding RP Mentors.

Mentors do more than help people with RP. They are also players and valued site participants, and most are heavily involved with various groups in that latter capacities.Some did this long before they were Mentors, and they continue to do it.

Fostering support for members in the A&F community doesn't fall in their job description, nor does the encouragement of players struggling with RL issues. Nor does a player's willingness to help people with math and science when they know the kid is struggling at school qualify as a Mentor duty. Making flags isn't part of their job, either, yet they do it for their fellow players. For that matter, offering to code entire OSF for regions as well as set up Espernet chat rooms and Discord servers is also not a Mentor duty, especially if they aren't an N&I Mentor, yet some volunteer their services as a designer. All this on top of Mentoring - some players go the distance for site members. It's a labor of love as it falls outside the scope of their assigned tasks.

These things can be worded accordingly: the Nation of Examplestan fostering fine arts in fledgling nations; offering guidance to governments struggling to balance duties with life's events; supporting mathematics and the sciences in foreign nations; etc. Basically, recognizing them for their non-Mentor duties and service to the site.


Edit here. Apologies for posting with a puppet, but I'm busy elsewhere on the site at the mo. Heh.

[Drasnia]

Mentors can be commended already.

[Fauxia]

Mentors can be commended already.

Yeah, just like GenSec, they aren't site staff, I think

[Greater Cesnica]

So, when's the mod ruling coming out?

[Greater Cesnica]

Also, has nobody noticed the title of this thread misspelled 'staff'?

[Socio Polor]

Mentors can be commended already.

Yeah, just like GenSec, they aren't site staff, I think

They are site staff, along with IE's,Mods and Admins.

[Aclion]

The thinking behind allowing C&C for former staff, but not current staff, was that if someone has stepped down and is no longer in a position of authority, then commending them can't be construed as an attempt to curry favor.

This argument is disturbing to me, if someone's actions as a staff member can be influenced by a commendation then they really should not be in a position of authority.

[Wrapper]

After some discussion, moderation has decided to allow commendations and condemnations to mention issues written, submitted and published by Issue Editors prior to their appointment as IEs. Since their work as an IE includes writing issues, any issues written once they become IEs cannot be mentioned. Also, C&C authors do need to be careful with their wording. Generic wording that might include work they currently do won't be allowed. For example:

Recognizing NATION as particularly skilled in raising awareness of important topics among the community, including (list of pre-IE issues)

This is too generic, as "raising awareness of important topics" in general describes what they currently do as IEs. However:

Recognizing NATION for raising awareness of the following important topics among the community: (list of pre-IE issues)

This makes it clear they are being C&C'd for work done for a specific set of issues completed prior to their appointment.

The same guidelines would apply to C&Cs for Mentors and the GA Secretariat. Any work they currently perform in that capacity cannot be mentioned in a C&C, but anything specific done prior to their appointment is fair game. (Note that "work they currently perform in that capacity" does not include GA authorship by GenSec members; that's not part of their job as GenSec, so it would be legal to mention such authorship.)

[Consular]

Thank you for the ruling. I think we can work with this.

[Gnejs]

After some discussion, moderation has decided to allow commendations and condemnations to mention issues written by Issue Editors prior to their appointment as IEs. Since their work as an IE includes writing issues, any issues written once they become IEs cannot be mentioned. Also, C&C authors do need to be careful with their wording. Generic wording that might include work they currently do won't be allowed.

"Written" means submitted, right? Or do you mean published, as in when they're actually made apart of the game? Important difference there. You must mean submitted, for sure.

So if I wanted to commend, or condemn, CWA, I could include a mentioning of #774 (submitted about a month before he was made editor, published a week or so ago), but not #739 (submitted May of this year, published a month ago, give or take), is that correct? And about 90% of his 2 billion submitted drafts are from his pre-editor days. These, whenever they're published, would also be fair game, right?

You're probably going to need to hire an editor as an SC-consultant to keep track of these things!

[Drasnia]

After some discussion, moderation has decided to allow commendations and condemnations to mention issues written by Issue Editors prior to their appointment as IEs. Since their work as an IE includes writing issues, any issues written once they become IEs cannot be mentioned. Also, C&C authors do need to be careful with their wording. Generic wording that might include work they currently do won't be allowed.

"Written" means submitted, right? Or do you mean published, as in when they're actually made apart of the game? Important difference there. You must mean submitted, for sure.

So if I wanted to commend, or condemn, CWA, I could include a mentioning of #774 (submitted about a month before he was made editor, published a week or so ago), but not #739 (submitted May of this year, published a month ago, give or take), is that correct? And about 90% of his 2 billion submitted drafts are from his pre-editor days. These, whenever they're published, would also be fair game, right?

You're probably going to need to hire an editor as an SC-consultant to keep track of these things!

Asking an editor: How does being an editor affect issues you've written after becoming an editor - in a "how does this become an action as site staff" sort of way? If you aren't editing it, how does it still count as R1?

[USS Monitor]

"Written" means submitted, right? Or do you mean published, as in when they're actually made apart of the game? Important difference there. You must mean submitted, for sure.

So if I wanted to commend, or condemn, CWA, I could include a mentioning of #774 (submitted about a month before he was made editor, published a week or so ago), but not #739 (submitted May of this year, published a month ago, give or take), is that correct? And about 90% of his 2 billion submitted drafts are from his pre-editor days. These, whenever they're published, would also be fair game, right?

You're probably going to need to hire an editor as an SC-consultant to keep track of these things!

Asking an editor: How does being an editor affect issues you've written after becoming an editor - in a "how does this become an action as site staff" sort of way? If you aren't editing it, how does it still count as R1?

Having access to the editing room means you can see discussions about what the game needs. Sometimes that means you know that there is a demand for an issue on a particular topic before that gets announced publicly. Sometimes you know stuff that never does get announced publicly. Even if you didn't personally edit an issue, you might still have participated in a backstage conversation that was related in some way.

Decisions about which issue to work on, or which issue to use when there are two submissions on the same topic, are sometimes influenced by whether it is a staff issue or a player submission. This sometimes works in favor of regular players, like, "He's a new author; let's give him some encouragement," but there still is a distinction being made between staff issues and player issues. If an editor's issue gets deleted, they have the ability to see that it was deleted and react to that -- and possibly try to salvage the issue, depending on the situation -- whereas a regular player wouldn't know when it got deleted.

Even if it's not a self-edit, you just have a lot more access to the process.

[Wrapper]

"Written" means submitted, right? Or do you mean published, as in when they're actually made apart of the game? Important difference there. You must mean submitted, for sure.

I meant "written" as "submitted" but....

So if I wanted to commend, or condemn, CWA, I could include a mentioning of #774 (submitted about a month before he was made editor, published a week or so ago), but not #739 (submitted May of this year, published a month ago, give or take), is that correct? And about 90% of his 2 billion submitted drafts are from his pre-editor days. These, whenever they're published, would also be fair game, right?

...but now I'm not so sure that should be the case. I'm thinking "published" is a better option. An IE can write and submit an issue, become an IE, and then take part in the discussion and have at least some influence on the text or stats for the issue before it is published. Also, it would be relatively easy for moderation to determine when an IE was made an IE and when that IE's issues were published, without needing to "hire an editor as an SC-consultant to keep track of these things". It's a clearer-cut line, wouldn't you agree?

[Helaw]

Asking an editor: How does being an editor affect issues you've written after becoming an editor - in a "how does this become an action as site staff" sort of way? If you aren't editing it, how does it still count as R1?

Having access to the editing room means you can see discussions about what the game needs. Sometimes that means you know that there is a demand for an issue on a particular topic before that gets announced publicly. Sometimes you know stuff that never does get announced publicly. Even if you didn't personally edit an issue, you might still have participated in a backstage conversation that was related in some way.

I have to disagree with this sentiment. While I can certainly understand it if an Issue is drafted exclusively backstage (this being the case with chains, though these are self-edits and would not be permitted anyway), most are drafted fully in the public eye. When an Issue is needed in terms of subject matter and happens to have only been mentioned backstage, the community is told about it and it is added to the list of Issue ideas on GI; anything less goes against convention and should be criticised, which does happen where appropriate. This also applies to policy reversal Issues, with the very rare exception of situations where the policy is a deliberate secret due to being associated with other projects. While an Editor would obviously have a head-start, it would hardly be a substantial one and any submissions received would be judged on merit rather than position.

Decisions about which issue to work on, or which issue to use when there are two submissions on the same topic, are sometimes influenced by whether it is a staff issue or a player submission. This sometimes works in favor of regular players, like, "He's a new author; let's give him some encouragement," but there still is a distinction being made between staff issues and player issues. If an editor's issue gets deleted, they have the ability to see that it was deleted and react to that -- and possibly try to salvage the issue, depending on the situation -- whereas a regular player wouldn't know when it got deleted.

Even if it's not a self-edit, you just have a lot more access to the process.

Staff Issues are only ever selected based on merit, and even then they are often set aside in favour of player-submitted Issues. From my point of view, if it isn't based on the quality of the Issue itself, then clearly the Editor that made the decision is at fault. This ideal is already the consensus backstage I feel, though with a bias towards non-Editor submissions due to, as you said, a desire to encourage new authors to write more often.

Sure, Editors can salvage their own Issues. However, they won't be given preferential treatment in terms of having their Issue accepted, and will find that badly-written Issues are not picked up. I do not think that this is a major problem, as players are always welcome to work on their own Issues after submission, and can request to have their newer submission reviewed (I believe that I did this myself at one point before becoming an Editor). This isn't communicated very well, and I personally would like to see more communication between authors and backstage workings; even if it's only automated*. I certainly don't see the current situation as being grounds to rule out post-Editorship work, as there isn't any such thing as "being in the know" here.

* Perhaps a telegram along the lines of, "Unfortunately, your Issue was not accepted due to the following reasons:" followed by some concise points given by the Editor that made the decision. This would certainly encourage proper judgement and reviewal on the part of the Editing team, and it would let authors know how to improve their submissions. It wouldn't be associated with any particular Editor in the eyes of the author either, due to the automated nature of it. I already see some Editors detailing why they delete some submissions backstage.

[Unibot III]

This is a more reasonable ruling, imo. It's a better system to follow for other 'community roles' in NS, I think at least.

"Written" means submitted, right? Or do you mean published, as in when they're actually made apart of the game? Important difference there. You must mean submitted, for sure.

I meant "written" as "submitted" but....

So if I wanted to commend, or condemn, CWA, I could include a mentioning of #774 (submitted about a month before he was made editor, published a week or so ago), but not #739 (submitted May of this year, published a month ago, give or take), is that correct? And about 90% of his 2 billion submitted drafts are from his pre-editor days. These, whenever they're published, would also be fair game, right?

...but now I'm not so sure that should be the case. I'm thinking "published" is a better option. An IE can write and submit an issue, become an IE, and then take part in the discussion and have at least some influence on the text or stats for the issue before it is published. Also, it would be relatively easy for moderation to determine when an IE was made an IE and when that IE's issues were published, without needing to "hire an editor as an SC-consultant to keep track of these things". It's a clearer-cut line, wouldn't you agree?

My other question is what happens if a IE retires and writes an issue after retirement. Let's say, Kandarin or GR returns and submits an issue, but aren't recognized as an IE. (And we wanted to commend them; obviously Kandarin and GR are already commended so the point is moot.)

[USS Monitor]

Having access to the editing room means you can see discussions about what the game needs. Sometimes that means you know that there is a demand for an issue on a particular topic before that gets announced publicly. Sometimes you know stuff that never does get announced publicly. Even if you didn't personally edit an issue, you might still have participated in a backstage conversation that was related in some way.

I have to disagree with this sentiment. While I can certainly understand it if an Issue is drafted exclusively backstage (this being the case with chains, though these are self-edits and would not be permitted anyway), most are drafted fully in the public eye. When an Issue is needed in terms of subject matter and happens to have only been mentioned backstage, the community is told about it and it is added to the list of Issue ideas on GI; anything less goes against convention and should be criticised, which does happen where appropriate. This also applies to policy reversal Issues, with the very rare exception of situations where the policy is a deliberate secret due to being associated with other projects. While an Editor would obviously have a head-start, it would hardly be a substantial one and any submissions received would be judged on merit rather than position.

Decisions about which issue to work on, or which issue to use when there are two submissions on the same topic, are sometimes influenced by whether it is a staff issue or a player submission. This sometimes works in favor of regular players, like, "He's a new author; let's give him some encouragement," but there still is a distinction being made between staff issues and player issues. If an editor's issue gets deleted, they have the ability to see that it was deleted and react to that -- and possibly try to salvage the issue, depending on the situation -- whereas a regular player wouldn't know when it got deleted.

Even if it's not a self-edit, you just have a lot more access to the process.

Staff Issues are only ever selected based on merit, and even then they are often set aside in favour of player-submitted Issues. From my point of view, if it isn't based on the quality of the Issue itself, then clearly the Editor that made the decision is at fault. This ideal is already the consensus backstage I feel, though with a bias towards non-Editor submissions due to, as you said, a desire to encourage new authors to write more often.

Sure, Editors can salvage their own Issues. However, they won't be given preferential treatment in terms of having their Issue accepted, and will find that badly-written Issues are not picked up. I do not think that this is a major problem, as players are always welcome to work on their own Issues after submission, and can request to have their newer submission reviewed (I believe that I did this myself at one point before becoming an Editor). This isn't communicated very well, and I personally would like to see more communication between authors and backstage workings; even if it's only automated*. I certainly don't see the current situation as being grounds to rule out post-Editorship work, as there isn't any such thing as "being in the know" here.

* Perhaps a telegram along the lines of, "Unfortunately, your Issue was not accepted due to the following reasons:" followed by some concise points given by the Editor that made the decision. This would certainly encourage proper judgement and reviewal on the part of the Editing team, and it would let authors know how to improve their submissions. It wouldn't be associated with any particular Editor in the eyes of the author either, due to the automated nature of it. I already see some Editors detailing why they delete some submissions backstage.

Even if editors generally DON'T abuse their backstage access for personal gain -- and I would agree that you guys don't -- that doesn't mean you CAN'T. There's a difference between something being discouraged by community convention and something being literally impossible because you don't have access to the relevant parts of the site.

And no, most issues are not drafted fully in the public eye. A lot of issues have drafting threads on the public forum, but it is normal for additional editing to happen backstage after it is submitted.

[Helaw]

Even if editors generally DON'T abuse their backstage access for personal gain -- and I would agree that you guys don't -- that doesn't mean you CAN'T. There's a difference between something being discouraged by community convention and something being literally impossible because you don't have access to the relevant parts of the site.

We have a Senior Editor for a reason, along with the presence of Issues Mods. If we are to make the assumption that the team would happily abuse their access if they underwent a change of heart, we should not forget the fact that there are multiple figures of oversight that would stand against it.

And no, most issues are not drafted fully in the public eye. A lot of issues have drafting threads on the public forum, but it is normal for additional editing to happen backstage after it is submitted.

Assuming you are meaning post-submission changes by the Editor that authored the Issue rather than actual editing, I have already discussed that above:

Sure, Editors can salvage their own Issues. However, they won't be given preferential treatment in terms of having their Issue accepted, and will find that badly-written Issues are not picked up. I do not think that this is a major problem, as players are always welcome to work on their own Issues after submission, and can request to have their newer submission reviewed (I believe that I did this myself at one point before becoming an Editor). This isn't communicated very well, and I personally would like to see more communication between authors and backstage workings; even if it's only automated*. I certainly don't see the current situation as being grounds to rule out post-Editorship work, as there isn't any such thing as "being in the know" here.

Do I think that Editor self-reflection after submission counts as a staff action? No. Do I believe that the current system could be improved? Certainly.

Bear in mind that all Editor submissions are shoved into the team-written pile regardless of quality just for organisation. This means that they have just as much an indication of whether or not changes should be made as authors do at the moment, and would have even less if a new system like the one I described arises. They may be able to make the changes more efficiently by making them directly backstage, but they don't have any more clue as to whether or not those changes should be made.

[Frisbeeteria]

We have a Senior Editor for a reason, along with the presence of Issues Mods. If we are to make the assumption that the team would happily abuse their access if they underwent a change of heart, we should not forget the fact that there are multiple figures of oversight that would stand against it.

It's not enough to have oversight. We could quite easily violate that integrity with players none the wiser, oversight nonwithstanding. Site staff must also have the public appearance of integrity. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" carries more weight when it's not possible for the guardians of the site to privately abuse their privileges, due to self-imposed rules.

The consensus Moderation ruling above reflects that principle, as originally laid down by the site owner, Max Barry. If you want the privileges of membership in Site Staff, you must also accept the limitations.

[Cheeksam]

Yippee!