The Branding Rule

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Mods have used that excuse before for excluding pretitles, though.

[Frisbeeteria]

Mods have used that excuse before for excluding pretitles, though.

"Long" pretitle isn't really a problem. "Offensive" pretitle, that's another matter.

We routinely scan new nation names, so you're unlikely to ever see a proposal from "The Democratic Republic of DickPenis". With a [nation] tag that allowed a pretitle, it would be quite simple for someone to insert "The Cock Smoking Assholes of PerfectlyNormalNation" into international law. We'd never notice it unless somebody pointed it out to us, which doesn't happen often for long-established nations.

[Christian Democrats]

As a general rule, I think "long-established nations" try to avoid conduct that will result in deletion.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Not-long-established nations can't custom-change their pretitle; I think that's the distinction he was trying to make.

[Flibbleites]

As a general rule, I think "long-established nations" try to avoid conduct that will result in deletion.

You'd be surprised.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Mods have used that excuse before for excluding pretitles, though.

"Long" pretitle isn't really a problem. "Offensive" pretitle, that's another matter.

We routinely scan new nation names, so you're unlikely to ever see a proposal from "The Democratic Republic of DickPenis". With a [nation] tag that allowed a pretitle, it would be quite simple for someone to insert "The Cock Smoking Assholes of PerfectlyNormalNation" into international law. We'd never notice it unless somebody pointed it out to us, which doesn't happen often for long-established nations.

The 'WA Member Dolphin Killers' and that ilk?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

"Long" pretitle isn't really a problem. "Offensive" pretitle, that's another matter.

We routinely scan new nation names, so you're unlikely to ever see a proposal from "The Democratic Republic of DickPenis". With a [nation] tag that allowed a pretitle, it would be quite simple for someone to insert "The Cock Smoking Assholes of PerfectlyNormalNation" into international law. We'd never notice it unless somebody pointed it out to us, which doesn't happen often for long-established nations.

The 'WA Member Dolphin Killers' and that ilk?

Hey! I resemble that remark!

viewtopic.php?p=16245872#p16245872

[Frisbeeteria]

Summary of proposed changes:

• No real consensus on this issue. Players seem to be divided between several mutually exclusive camps
• Some discussion of adding a code solution (which has NOT been presented to [violet])
• A somewhat confusing poll, which I haven't the patience to summarize (as people seemed to add or modify poll options during voting)

[Imperium Anglorum]

While the majority of the discussion here was about proposed changes to who may be listed as co-authors, I would say that greater restrictions are in order regarding the creation of a region or nation based on a WA resolution (WSA, anyone?). Basically, a clause which prevents a WA resolution from being used to advertise or publicise a nation, or more importantly, a region.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

If World Space Administration (the resolution) was actually created to promote the region, then it may already have been in violation of standing rules anyway. But the WSA region was created after the fact, wasn't it?

[Imperium Anglorum]

If World Space Administration (the resolution) was actually created to promote the region, then it may already have been in violation of standing rules anyway. But the WSA region was created after the fact, wasn't it?

Yes. However, I remember distinctly in the discussion that people spoke of it as if was 'borderline'. What I'm proposing is to make it not borderline and to make it simply illegal.

[Separatist Peoples]

If World Space Administration (the resolution) was actually created to promote the region, then it may already have been in violation of standing rules anyway. But the WSA region was created after the fact, wasn't it?

Yes. However, I remember distinctly in the discussion that people spoke of it as if was 'borderline'. What I'm proposing is to make it not borderline and to make it simply illegal.

That was mostly because the resolution came first, and something can't be retroactively illegal. Besides, if we banned the use of the name of a resolution or comittee after a region formed, people would just create regions to force illegalities, and everything would grind to a halt.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Yes. However, I remember distinctly in the discussion that people spoke of it as if was 'borderline'. What I'm proposing is to make it not borderline and to make it simply illegal.

That was mostly because the resolution came first, and something can't be retroactively illegal. Besides, if we banned the use of the name of a resolution or comittee after a region formed, people would just create regions to force illegalities, and everything would grind to a halt.

No, no, I'm talking about the action of making a resolution after the region was already made, which was a concern in the Bitely's WSA redraft thread. It was there that people spoke of it being borderline.

[The Silver Sentinel]

people would just create regions to force illegalities, and everything would grind to a halt.

That is the single most ingenious thing ever said in this game ever. I cannot believe no one has thought of this before.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

That was mostly because the resolution came first, and something can't be retroactively illegal. Besides, if we banned the use of the name of a resolution or comittee after a region formed, people would just create regions to force illegalities, and everything would grind to a halt.

No, no, I'm talking about the action of making a resolution after the region was already made, which was a concern in the Bitely's WSA redraft thread. It was there that people spoke of it being borderline.

If WA#8, which officially sanctioned WA Building Mgmt's authority over WAHQ, wasn't illegal...

[Separatist Peoples]

people would just create regions to force illegalities, and everything would grind to a halt.

That is the single most ingenious thing ever said in this game ever. I cannot believe no one has thought of this before.

For better or for worse, it wouldn't work. The mods have a fair amount of discretion and I can't imagine them letting that happen.

[The Dark Star Republic]

That is the single most ingenious thing ever said in this game ever. I cannot believe no one has thought of this before.

For better or for worse, it wouldn't work. The mods have a fair amount of discretion and I can't imagine them letting that happen.

I'd quite like to see them try, though, just to see whether Frisbeeteria's levels of snark in the resulting smackdown reach atomic levels.

[Luna Amore]

Why is branding even needed at all? If you want to thank people who contributed you can list their names in the OP of the debate thread, in a dispatch, or an NSwiki article.

There is only one time when branding is almost required, which is when the resolution is so dependent on someone else's work that it would be plagiarism without a credit. But given mods have to check that kind of thing anyway, it's not needed.

It seems like the consensus in the NatSov rule thread is towards having mods enforce community standards. So, just ban branding altogether and save everyone the headache.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Why would you include a link to the dictionary definition of thread?

[Luna Amore]

And why did you copy and paste DSR's post from four months ago, word for word?

Why is branding even needed at all? If you want to thank people who contributed you can list their names in the OP of the debate thread, in a dispatch, or an NSwiki article.

There is only one time when branding is almost required, which is when the resolution is so dependent on someone else's work that it would be plagiarism without a credit. But given mods have to check that kind of thing anyway, it's not needed.

It seems like the consensus in the NatSov rule thread is towards having mods enforce community standards. So, just ban branding altogether and save everyone the headache.

Why is branding even needed at all? If you want to thank people who contributed you can list their names in the OP of the debate thread, in a dispatch, or an NSwiki article.

There is only one time when branding is almost required, which is when the resolution is so dependent on someone else's work that it would be plagiarism without a credit. But given mods have to check that kind of thing anyway, it's not needed.

It seems like the consensus in the NatSov rule thread is towards having mods enforce community standards. So, just ban branding altogether and save everyone the headache.

[Frisbeeteria]

And why did you copy and paste DSR's post from four months ago, word for word?

Because Nataly Anders is a Ukrainian adbot trying to emulate a real user, but lacks the skill to pull it off without copypasta.

It's probably best to report these sorts of events (new user, obvious copypasta) in Moderation. We have ways of neutralizing them.

[Phydios]

And why did you copy and paste DSR's post from four months ago, word for word?

Because Nataly Anders is a Ukrainian adbot trying to emulate a real user, but lacks the skill to pull it off without copypasta.

It's probably best to report these sorts of events (new user, obvious copypasta) in Moderation. We have ways of neutralizing them.

...Really? I had no idea that they were anything but a legitimate user. I have signatures turned off, so if that's where their advertising was, I didn't see it. Anyway, I'll report cases like this from now on. Thanks.

[Frisbeeteria]

I have signatures turned off

It wasn't in their sig. It's a behavioral thing. Nations with human first and last names who copy intact posts from other users as their first post almost always end up being adbots. The Ukranian spam server proxy just confirmed that.

In any event, enough with this spammer-inspired threadjack. Does anyone have anything further to the Branding discussion?

[Phydios]

Options, as I see them:

1) Eliminate co-authors entirely
2) Maintain the current rule (limit 1 co-author, [nation=short] tags)
2a) Ask the Techies for an optional "Co-author" box to fill in upon submission (to make it easier to maintain the current rule)
3) Expand the limit to 2 or 3 co-authors (*please specify two or three)
4) Adopt the SC approach for Co-Authors
5) Ban co-author listings from the proposal text, but don't necessarily abandon the idea of a custom co-author field. (This option, a blend of 1 and 2a, was not originally in the poll.)

Here's the poll that was proposed, with the one option that was added afterwards. I took the time to summarize the votes on it. I ignored any posts that didn't state a number, as well as any second choices- not because I believed they should be ignored, but because I wanted to keep the summary simple. The number after each name is the ID of the relevant post.

1: 6 (Knootoss- 24540908, Sciongrad- 24540987, Snefaldia- 24542544, Omigodtheyclonedkenny- 24545304, Tzorsland- 24549532, Frisbeeteria- 24549659)
2: None
2a: 4 (Glen-Rhodes- 24543120, Greater Louisistan- 24547077, Bears Armed- 24560396, Railana- 24569866)
3: 3 (Excidium Planetis- 24543156, Defwa- 24551827, Christian Democrats- 24630273)
4: 2 (Mallorea and Riva- 24546721, Losthaven- 24616631)
5: 2 (The Dark Star Republic- 24540704, Sierra Lyricalia- 24560607)

Now, I would vote for option 1. I read the thread as the debate was raging, I reread it entirely just today, and I really don't see why co-authors should have a place in GA proposals. In my opinion, if you want to thank the people that contributed, make a forum thread or a factbook/dispatch and credit co-authors there. If your co-authors only want their name in the WA's books, that's the kind of attitude that should be discouraged. It doesn't contribute to the purpose of the GA. Authorship badges are different- it's perfectly fine to give authors some form of thanks for their contributions. But I think the best author is as anonymous as possible. By all means, submit resolutions under your own name- trying to stay disconnected from your proposal is pretty shady. But don't expect recognition for your efforts. The submission, and especially the passing, of your proposal should be its own reward.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

This is the "lack of consensus" Mall cited when he ditched the rule? It's clear to anyone that all but two participants want to keep the rule in some form, or create a new co-author box to make it moot. Interesting that one of the two that didn't want to keep the rule was Mallorea and Riva.