[Defeated] Commend Northrop-Grumman

[Unibot III]

Respectively I disagree, I'm not suggesting anyone opt out of Rule 1, I'm suggesting they're acknowledging the scope of the resolution; this is not an "opt out" because Rule 1 is not a ban on mentioning site contributions, it is a ban on commending or condemning a nominee for site contributions.

As much as I'm being tongue in cheek, I'm also serious here.

I think Rule 1's interpretation has ballooned over the years from moderators hazily applying more and more scope to Rule 1 beyond its general and written intent -- and Northrop-Grumman is the worst victim of that moderation overreach.

Rule 1 was never a ban on mentioning site contributions, it was a ban on commending/condemning site staff for being site staff. Now we have a case where the rule is being expanded beyond site staff, and being expanded to any mere mention, even in a negative sense, to a nominee's site contributions.

To pretend that "mentions" of activity performed as site staff just fell out of the sky and into the text of a C&C is the height of disingenuity. Authors are not in the habit of adding random fact statements into their resolutions without intending them as arguments in favor of their bill, and voters are not in the habit of reading such statements as independent of the act of commendation or condemnation. C&Cs are passed on the basis of the acts detailed therein. You cannot separate any statement within a C&C from the act of awarding the nominee its categorical distinction.

There is no "overreach" going on here. Site staff contributions are site staff contributions are site staff contributions. Quite frankly, this would also more likely than not violate Rule 4 as well, since I don't see how you can refer to a theme without admitting NS is a game.

I don't know if you just want attention or if you actually want to establish some tortured legal argument for disregarding Rule 1 entirely, but in either case you are actively harming this community by maintaining this argument. I encourage you to stop digging.

"Actively harming this community"? Good grief. Who are you?

"To pretend that "mentions" of activity performed as site staff just fell out of the sky and into the text of a C&C is the height of disingenuity."

It is not for you or anyone to interpret my capacity for disingenuity (- and you're deeply underestimating the height of disingenuity). Never before in the SC has it tried to interpret legality through author's intent. And I think that is a major failing here in your reasoning. The SC's legal interpretations are typically conducted in an approach blind to the question of authenticity. It doesn't matter if what is stated is true or false. It doesn't matter if the language used is deliberately equivocal and misleading to circumvent Rule 4. These are all common, perfectly acceptable, and legal modus operandi in the Security Council. It doesn't matter if something is 'mentioned' to 'get around' a rule - if you can get around a rule, you haven't violated it and if you haven't violated the rule, you have not done anything impermissible.

Voluntary technical contributions to NS do not necessarily equal site staff contributions, because site staff contributions are contributed not surprisingly by site staff. It's not tortured logic: it's common sense that site staff are site staff and everyone else is not site staff. Rule 1 has absolutely suffered over the years from overreach: growing in its application well beyond its original intent, from site staff to non-site staff, and now you're suggesting Rule 1 should also encompass any language that mentions contributions to the site, even if the proposal is not commending/condemning a nominee for those contributions.

You're pointing at a rule which nakedly does not prohibit what you insist it prohibits, you've failed to demonstrate how the text should be twisted into being interpreted as applying to this circumstance, and instead of just relenting, you're relying now on pure histronics and accusations of "actively harming" people to overcome the weakness of your defense. The reality is this is not what Rule 1 was written to ban, it's not what it is for, and I'm perfectly comfortable making that case because frankly I'm tired of seeing this rule balloon in its scope arbitrarily.

[Starfyre]

I mean, Uni, you aren't site staff. It's not your job to interpret the SC rules, nor is it mine or Makdon's or anyone else's. Sedge was there in the thick of writing these rules, as were you and CG. Sure, I've interpreted rules differently than the mods before and then I've been corrected.

It still stands that the mention of themes is clearly mentioning the technical aspect of the game, because there's no RL equivalency. It's the job of the mods to tell us what is and is not permissible under the rules, and on this there more than likely won't be a judge.

[Unibot III]

I mean, Uni, you aren't site staff. It's not your job to interpret the SC rules, nor is it mine or Makdon's or anyone else's. Sedge was there in the thick of writing these rules, as were you and CG. Sure, I've interpreted rules differently than the mods before and then I've been corrected.

It still stands that the mention of themes is clearly mentioning the technical aspect of the game, because there's no RL equivalency. It's the job of the mods to tell us what is and is not permissible under the rules, and on this there more than likely won't be a judge.

Note, the “dark theme” thing is prohibited as grounds for a C&C because of Rule 1, not Rule 4. While I do not agree with Sedgistan’s argument that R1 should be extended to non site staff, I am not arguing at this time to reverse the original ruling, I am arguing that Rule 1 only prohibits commending/condemning nominees for site contributions, it does not prohibit the mention of site contributions if a nominee is not being commended/condemned for site contributions. That’s a big giant gaping hole in the law as written.

While no non-moderator is a final authority on the ruleset, it is the responsibility of players to debate the interpretation of its rules — indeed these discussions tend to have a great impact on the future of rulings — there are many cases where rulings have been countermanded or clarified after discussions between players. I encourage all players to have a mind of their own. You shouldn’t ever submit to something you think is untrue. For instance, no ruling ever attracted as much discussion and as many legality challenges and assertions as the determination that “feeder” and “sinker” violated Rule 4. If you were to travel back in time to 2012, moderators would swear up and down to you that their interpretation of R4 *must* be correct and of course, feeder & sinker are inadmissible. If players humbly submitted to the first ruling, I suspect “feeder” and “sinker” would still be prohibited.

[Makdon]

I'm gonna voice my opposition to and reasoning against a blanket ruling against recognizing Northrop-Grummans development of the dark theme one last time before letting it rest, because I really disagree with the logic behind it.

For starters, it is absolutely certain that the work I would be literally referencing in the text would be their work developing the dark themes, which they did while not a staff member, so a strict reading of the commendation (and what reader without knowledge of NG would presume) would be that work done as a site staff is not being used as an argument. There are two arguments that come after this that I have heard used as reasoning for why mentioning NG's development of the dark themes is a rules violation:

1. The idea that NG's work creating the dark themes cannot and should not be separated from their years of continued dedication as a staff member. This doesn't make any sense to me, to be honest. Perhaps from a symbolic perspective this could be true, but in terms of the content of a proposal, it just isn't. It is very easily possible to speak specifically about the creation of the dark themes and to make clear that the creation being referenced is the initial one, not when it was added to the game. There is no reason this should violate r1. It explicitly references work solely done while not a site staff member, and isn't in any way an attempt to slyly recognize site staff work. This seems to be Sedge's reasoning.
2. The second argument I've heard is twofold - both that since themes are a part of the games appearance they can't be commended for, and additionally that it breaks the 4th wall to do so. This is equally asinine. Once again, the specific thing being commended for is not creating a theme in game, but developing a script that allows players to apply different appearance to the site, and is totally separate from the site itself. As to the second one, nothing breaks the 4th wall if written well enough, and I think I've already managed to talk about the appearance of the site in a way that doesn't break the 4th wall.

Overall, I think this ruling is one being carried over from a time of a stricter reading of r1. This feels to me somewhat comparable to not letting IEs be commended for issues work done before they were made editors, and honestly the exact same arguments against doing that apply there as they do here, so it doesn't make sense that that's allowed and this isn't. But oh well.

[Sedgistan]

There's really two questions here:

1) Can you recognise N-G for developing the official Dark Theme?

and if not,

2) Can you recognise N-G for developing the original unofficial Dark Theme?

Question 1 is a simple no. N-G's work on the official Dark Theme is effectively that of a NationStates staff member. He might not have the badge / title / fancy colour of other staff members, but that's because there's no practical point in us setting up a role "Dark Theme Admin" given his work involves 1 thread and very occasional sending of updates to admin. His role is not something that's open to any player to do - it's a task solely and officially assigned to him.

Question 2 I appreciate is trickier as there's a different situation with Issues Editors (i.e. issues authored and added to the game before they join are okay to mention). I was at one point going to suggest Makdon draft a clause that only mentioned the original 2 months of the original Dark Theme add-on, to see what it would be like -- but decided against. The reality is that the unofficial Dark Theme add-on became the official NationStates Dark Theme. The development work done on the former was the development work for the latter. To Commend for creating the Dark Theme add-on is to Commend for creating the NationStates Dark Theme - they're inseparable. The IE ruling is different; issues authored and added to the game before a player joined the IE team are distinct from their later editing/authoring.

[Makdon]

New draft!

There's really two questions here:

1) Can you recognise N-G for developing the official Dark Theme?

and if not,

2) Can you recognise N-G for developing the original unofficial Dark Theme?

Question 1 is a simple no. N-G's work on the official Dark Theme is effectively that of a NationStates staff member. He might not have the badge / title / fancy colour of other staff members, but that's because there's no practical point in us setting up a role "Dark Theme Admin" given his work involves 1 thread and very occasional sending of updates to admin. His role is not something that's open to any player to do - it's a task solely and officially assigned to him.

Question 2 I appreciate is trickier as there's a different situation with Issues Editors (i.e. issues authored and added to the game before they join are okay to mention). I was at one point going to suggest Makdon draft a clause that only mentioned the original 2 months of the original Dark Theme add-on, to see what it would be like -- but decided against. The reality is that the unofficial Dark Theme add-on became the official NationStates Dark Theme. The development work done on the former was the development work for the latter. To Commend for creating the Dark Theme add-on is to Commend for creating the NationStates Dark Theme - they're inseparable. The IE ruling is different; issues authored and added to the game before a player joined the IE team are distinct from their later editing/authoring.

I know I said I was gonna let this rest in my last post, but I can't help but want to respond. I certainly agree with you on the answer to question 1, but I think you're wrong on multiple counts when it comes to question 2. Firstly, as I stated in my previous post, it is possible to literally only recognize the creation of the unofficial dark theme. One would have to be careful with their language, but I really think it's doable to separate the two in a clear way. For example: "Lauding Northrop-Grumman's interior designers’ no doubt arduous labor in designing two highly accessible and pleasant themes for nations' use, which they made available to the general public on July 22, 2011, and which they designed without any abilities beyond that of all nations, further highlighting the immense expertise of Northrop-Grumman's interior designers,". This could not, under any circumstances, be construed as recognizing the dark theme being added to the game. I see where you are coming from with the idea that the unofficial dark theme and the official one are the same thing, but it's the action I'm recognizing, not the object, and the actions are clearly separable. And it's absurd to frame it as "the development work done on the former was the development work for the latter", because, while that is true, the development work done for the former was not done as a member of site staff, which is what actually matters. As to the issues analogy, one could just as easily treat contributions to the issues game as one, inseparable thing. All it takes is a different application of semantics.

Anyways, on a different note, is the knowledgable clause in the new draft legal? Because it doesn't reference the dark theme or Northrop-Grumman at all

[Sedgistan]

It's not - it's evidently about the dark theme. There's a difference between an occasional "dark" pun in clauses referring to other contributions and having an entire clause that is about dark themes.

[Honeydewistania]

Dark theme's massively overrated anyway.

[Makdon]

It's not - it's evidently about the dark theme. There's a difference between an occasional "dark" pun in clauses referring to other contributions and having an entire clause that is about dark themes.

I was wondering whether by never specifically mentioning the dark theme or Northrop-Grumman I'd somehow be able to get around r4, but I should've seen this coming

Anyways, I've removed that clause and all non-pun references to the dark theme, and I'll admit the draft is looking a little thin. I'll go digging for more info later this weekend, but until then, thoughts on the current draft?

Dark theme's massively overrated anyway.

<_<

[Comfed]

Dark theme's massively overrated anyway.

I agree.

[The Unified Missourtama States]

Overall, I think this ruling is one being carried over from a time of a stricter reading of r1. This feels to me somewhat comparable to not letting IEs be commended for issues work done before they were made editors, and honestly the exact same arguments against doing that apply there as they do here, so it doesn't make sense that that's allowed and this isn't. But oh well.

If the inclusion of the the contributions to the dark theme gets this struck down as illegal, I might just start a riot. Northrop-Grumman has never been part of the site staff, so r1 should never have to apply to anything written about them. We should be encouraging meta-contributions from everyone, it helps the site grow.

That's some Cretoxian logic there. I'm afraid mention of the dark theme isn't going to pass Rule 1. It doesn't matter that the initial part of it (a mere 2 months of its existence) was done unofficially, the end result was that the theme became an official part of the site, and you can't C/C for that.

So by this logic, all nations C&C'ed for issue writing have void illegal resolutions recognizing them that must be removed by the moderators.

[Cretox State]

What was your logic behind including an index “inspired by” NG’s in the proposal, and giving it seemingly equal weight to the two actually made by them?

[Unibot III]

There's really two questions here:

1) Can you recognise N-G for developing the official Dark Theme?

and if not,

2) Can you recognise N-G for developing the original unofficial Dark Theme?

Question 1 is a simple no. N-G's work on the official Dark Theme is effectively that of a NationStates staff member. He might not have the badge / title / fancy colour of other staff members, but that's because there's no practical point in us setting up a role "Dark Theme Admin" given his work involves 1 thread and very occasional sending of updates to admin. His role is not something that's open to any player to do - it's a task solely and officially assigned to him.

Question 2 I appreciate is trickier as there's a different situation with Issues Editors (i.e. issues authored and added to the game before they join are okay to mention). I was at one point going to suggest Makdon draft a clause that only mentioned the original 2 months of the original Dark Theme add-on, to see what it would be like -- but decided against. The reality is that the unofficial Dark Theme add-on became the official NationStates Dark Theme. The development work done on the former was the development work for the latter. To Commend for creating the Dark Theme add-on is to Commend for creating the NationStates Dark Theme - they're inseparable. The IE ruling is different; issues authored and added to the game before a player joined the IE team are distinct from their later editing/authoring.

I should start off by saying that I agree that any work that N-G is conducting with admins on a regular basis to update the dark skin should fall under Rule 1. My problem with the original "dark theme" ruling is it stretches Rule 1 to apply to non-site staff when you apply it to N-G's intial work to create a dark theme to begin with.

On Question 2, I think that moderation is making an error in strictly enforcing Rule 1 here, it's not consistent with the IE ruling and it's not consistent with how Rule 1 has been applied in the past. It's intellectially incoherant.

The purpose of Rule 1 is to protect moderators and site staff from backlash to their official duties innappropraitely being channelled through the WA, and equally so, it acts as a ban on commending site staff for doing their job.

Critical to Rule 1 is (what I shall call) the Principle of Exclusivity. Site staff are the only players who can moderate, the only players who can administrate, the only players who can edit issues, the only players who can mentors players in an official capacity - so it makes no sense to commend these players for something other players cannot reasonably do. If you can commend a player for something, it should be a contribution that is available for all players - that is what makes it an extraordinary and distinguishing contribution: that anyone could contribute something, but the nominee did.

The reason why the N-G ruling has never sat well with me, is it applies Rule 1 in a way that is inconsistent with the principle of exclusivity. Anyone could have created a dark theme if they put their mind to it, N-G did and shared it voluntarily with the NS Community. That in itself was a commendable act. If you're not interpreting Rule 1 with the principle of exclusivity in mind, you're expanding the rule beyond its original purpose.

I also think it is dangerous game to distinguish between technical contributions to the site and intellectual contributions. For instance, "Commend Unibot" commended me for contributing the idea of two WA chambers operating simultaneously:

"COGNIZANT that Unibot played a role in the furtherment of the idea, which was eventually implemented, of the two WA chambers operating as they do, with independent voting and separate proposal queues,"

How do you distinguish between contributing different kinds of intellectual property, under Rule 1, to NS? Both N-G and I contributed ideas to NS, but the fact that N-G's idea included code (that he voluntarily wrote without knowledge that it would be incorporated into the game) that then retroactively precludes his actions from being commendable? It seems deeply unfair and inconsistent.

[Makdon]

If the inclusion of the the contributions to the dark theme gets this struck down as illegal, I might just start a riot. Northrop-Grumman has never been part of the site staff, so r1 should never have to apply to anything written about them. We should be encouraging meta-contributions from everyone, it helps the site grow.

NG is currently, and has been since about two months after creating the original dark themes, a member of site staff. Their role is a niche one that presumably only allows them to edit the themes and doesn't come with any badge, but it does exist. I obviously agree that NG's work while not a site staff member should be commendable.

What was your logic behind including an index “inspired by” NG’s in the proposal, and giving it seemingly equal weight to the two actually made by them?

The sports index uses the exact same format as NG's, it was clearly an attempt at replicating his indexes. It does seem a bit odd to give it equal weight to the ones he has made and managed though, do you think it would be reasonable to talk about it in a separate clause?

[Unibot III]

Although I used an example from Commend Unibot II, Commend Tiago Silva was actually the original case from the literature that I wanted to use here as a counter example to Sedge’s NG ruling. I just couldn’t remember the name of the resolution, I’m getting old.

viewtopic.php?p=4467901#p4467901

The voluntary work that Tiago Silva did was similar to that of NG, but it was never conceived as a violation of Rule 1. Sedge defended the resolution’s legality. To me the case of Tiago Silva exemplifies how Rule 1 has grown in scope beyond a reasonable purpose.

[Makdon]

New draft. All I've done is split the sports index into its own clause, separate from the indexes which NG created. I don't see much more that can be done with this, so I'm planning to submit this on Tuesday the 22nd, pending further feedback.

[Makdon]

I obviously didn't submit this. I chose not to both because I've been busy irl, and because I wasn't quite happy with this. I've added some more flavor to give the draft more character and hint towards the dark themes, and so if no one has any problems with it, I'll actually submit this in the next few days.

[Makdon]

Seeing as no one has anything to add, I’ll be submitting this tomorrow after minor

[LollerLand]

Looks like a well written proposal and a worthy nominee. Best of luck!

[Makdon]

This has been submitted

[Pluvie]

I agree with Loller up there, this one looks pretty solid and a good commendable target. I'll have to look at this one a bit more(Although I'll have time as it's waiting behind 3 other proposals xD) but it looks pretty darn good so I'm definitely for on this one at the moment.

[Bormiar]

Full support.

[WayNeacTia]

To Commend for creating the Dark Theme add-on is to Commend for creating the NationStates Dark Theme - they're inseparable. The IE ruling is different; issues authored and added to the game before a player joined the IE team are distinct from their later editing/authoring.

Are they though? Would said players even be remotely considered to ask the IE team, had they not authored those issues in the first place?

[Denethoria]

Northrop-Grumman has abused, in continuous and consistent fashion, their own citizens. For them to receive my vote, they will have to drastically increase their basic decency in a manner that I would consider to be just common sense.

[Samicana]

They have no political freedoms or environmental protections,

So no