The Branding Rule

[Unibot III]

I still don't get why the Branding rule is so severe. I mean the SC operates fine with no co-author limit at all. So what if there's two co-authors? I also think the rules should allow resolutions to be co-authored by groups or submitted by nation accounts that represent groups - it's a common practice in bigger regions to encourage WA participation using regional WA committees and those committees have consistently been squashed by the branding rules both in the GA (and the SC also implemented a branding rule against groups but never put it in writing) - it just seems like an "anti-fun" rule. Regional WA Committees are good for the WA; they're ways in which players are encouraged to get involved with the WA and collectively author.

[Imperium Anglorum]

I still don't get why the Branding rule is so severe. I mean the SC operates fine with no co-author limit at all. So what if there's two co-authors? I also think the rules should allow resolutions to be co-authored by groups or submitted by nation accounts that represent groups - it's a common practice in bigger regions to encourage WA participation using regional WA committees and those committees have consistently been squashed by the branding rules both in the GA (and the SC also implemented a branding rule against groups but never put it in writing) - it just seems like an "anti-fun" rule. Regional WA Committees are good for the WA; they're ways in which players are encouraged to get involved with the WA and collectively author.

I agree. Having regional bodies allowed to submit (naturally, it would have to be excluded from the text itself) would be very helpful to building up momentum for regional mass involvement in the WA as well as having something for the region to celebrate or have solidarity on. It isn't like voting blocs draft together and submit together in the real UN (US, UK, France v. Russia, China, 1945-Forever).

[Mallorea and Riva]

I still don't get why the Branding rule is so severe. I mean the SC operates fine with no co-author limit at all. So what if there's two co-authors? I also think the rules should allow resolutions to be co-authored by groups or submitted by nation accounts that represent groups - it's a common practice in bigger regions to encourage WA participation using regional WA committees and those committees have consistently been squashed by the branding rules both in the GA (and the SC also implemented a branding rule against groups but never put it in writing) - it just seems like an "anti-fun" rule. Regional WA Committees are good for the WA; they're ways in which players are encouraged to get involved with the WA and collectively author.

I'd be fine with getting rid of the rule entirely just like the SC, but that encountered serious protest.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

I also think the rules should allow resolutions to be co-authored by groups or submitted by nation accounts that represent groups - it's a common practice in bigger regions to encourage WA participation using regional WA committees and those committees have consistently been squashed by the branding rules both in the GA (and the SC also implemented a branding rule against groups but never put it in writing) - it just seems like an "anti-fun" rule.

The rule was added to prevent recruitment in proposals.

As it is this discussion would be moot if the admins would just add a co-author line to the submission form.

[Unibot III]

I also think the rules should allow resolutions to be co-authored by groups or submitted by nation accounts that represent groups - it's a common practice in bigger regions to encourage WA participation using regional WA committees and those committees have consistently been squashed by the branding rules both in the GA (and the SC also implemented a branding rule against groups but never put it in writing) - it just seems like an "anti-fun" rule.

The rule was added to prevent recruitment in proposals.

That seems overly restrictive. If let's say, TSP has a WA Committee - which it did and it encountered issues with this rule, just as Osiris and TNP's WA Committee did - then is "Authored by the South Pacific" or "Authored by the South Pacific WA Committee" such a great boon to TSP's recruitment that it constitutes some sort of felony? I'm just not buying it. The region must have put some work into authoring the resolution - it seems like a lot of work for little "recruitment" gains.

I still don't get why the Branding rule is so severe. I mean the SC operates fine with no co-author limit at all. So what if there's two co-authors? I also think the rules should allow resolutions to be co-authored by groups or submitted by nation accounts that represent groups - it's a common practice in bigger regions to encourage WA participation using regional WA committees and those committees have consistently been squashed by the branding rules both in the GA (and the SC also implemented a branding rule against groups but never put it in writing) - it just seems like an "anti-fun" rule. Regional WA Committees are good for the WA; they're ways in which players are encouraged to get involved with the WA and collectively author.

I'd be fine with getting rid of the rule entirely just like the SC, but that encountered serious protest.

Surely serious protest against making the rules more restrictive should be more concerning than serious protest about making the rules laxer? The latter affects minority parties (people who author in groups and teams). What matters isn't the "protest" against a change but the justification behind the rule. The justification behind the extensiveness of the branding rule has always depended on someone's "taste" on the matter.

[Sciongrad]

Surely serious protest against making the rules more restrictive should be more concerning than serious protest about making the rules laxer? The latter affects minority parties (people who author in groups and teams). What matters isn't the "protest" against a change but the justification behind the rule. The justification behind the extensiveness of the branding rule has always depended on someone's "taste" on the matter.

I think the only players that have pressed for laxer rules, besides Mall, have been you and GR. I don't know if I'd call that "serious protest." However, both you and Mall are right in acknowledging the serious protests against making the rules laxer. An overwhelming majority of participants in this thread chose to remove co-authors completely from the texts of resolutions. And if our goal is to fashion a ruleset based on the views of the current GA community, then we ought to respect such a rare instance of overwhelming consensus.

[Imperium Anglorum]

Surely serious protest against making the rules more restrictive should be more concerning than serious protest about making the rules laxer? The latter affects minority parties (people who author in groups and teams). What matters isn't the "protest" against a change but the justification behind the rule. The justification behind the extensiveness of the branding rule has always depended on someone's "taste" on the matter.

I think the only players that have pressed for laxer rules, besides Mall, have been you and GR. I don't know if I'd call that "serious protest." However, both you and Mall are right in acknowledging the serious protests against making the rules laxer. An overwhelming majority of participants in this thread chose to remove co-authors completely from the texts of resolutions. And if our goal is to fashion a ruleset based on the views of the current GA community, then we ought to respect such a rare instance of overwhelming consensus.

You can add me to that list. But I don't support co-authors. But some kind of regional cooperation submitted by something like 'European WA Commission' would be nice. It would absolutely help create more activity in the Assembly by making people and their regions invested in this section of the game.

[Sciongrad]

I think the only players that have pressed for laxer rules, besides Mall, have been you and GR. I don't know if I'd call that "serious protest." However, both you and Mall are right in acknowledging the serious protests against making the rules laxer. An overwhelming majority of participants in this thread chose to remove co-authors completely from the texts of resolutions. And if our goal is to fashion a ruleset based on the views of the current GA community, then we ought to respect such a rare instance of overwhelming consensus.

You can add me to that list. But I don't support co-authors. But some kind of regional cooperation submitted by something like 'European WA Commission' would be nice. It would absolutely help create more activity in the Assembly by making people and their regions invested in this section of the game.

If you mean allowing a nation like "European WA Commission" to submit a resolution, then I agree completely. That's actually a dimension of the discussion that no one's really touched on. I think that rule is arbitrary and can circumscribe our roleplaying opportunities. I should probably refine my argument, for clarity: I don't believe in relaxing the limitations on co-authorship. I would prefer, like the majority of voters in this thread, to eliminate co-authors in the text of resolutions altogether.

[Imperium Anglorum]

You can add me to that list. But I don't support co-authors. But some kind of regional cooperation submitted by something like 'European WA Commission' would be nice. It would absolutely help create more activity in the Assembly by making people and their regions invested in this section of the game.

If you mean allowing a nation like "European WA Commission" to submit a resolution, then I agree completely. That's actually a dimension of the discussion that no one's really touched on. I think that rule is arbitrary and can circumscribe our roleplaying opportunities. I should probably refine my argument, for clarity: I don't believe in relaxing the limitations on co-authorship. I would prefer, like the majority of voters in this thread, to eliminate co-authors in the text of resolutions altogether.

With such things as 'European WA Commission' or thereabouts, I would have no problems with getting rid of coauthors or creating a new badge and field for coauthors.

[Unibot III]

You can add me to that list. But I don't support co-authors. But some kind of regional cooperation submitted by something like 'European WA Commission' would be nice. It would absolutely help create more activity in the Assembly by making people and their regions invested in this section of the game.

If you mean allowing a nation like "European WA Commission" to submit a resolution, then I agree completely. That's actually a dimension of the discussion that no one's really touched on. I think that rule is arbitrary and can circumscribe our roleplaying opportunities. I should probably refine my argument, for clarity: I don't believe in relaxing the limitations on co-authorship. I would prefer, like the majority of voters in this thread, to eliminate co-authors in the text of resolutions altogether.

I think the idea of restricting further co-authorships is downright prudish. As for "commission" nations - I discussed that in the above post.

[Sciongrad]

If you mean allowing a nation like "European WA Commission" to submit a resolution, then I agree completely. That's actually a dimension of the discussion that no one's really touched on. I think that rule is arbitrary and can circumscribe our roleplaying opportunities. I should probably refine my argument, for clarity: I don't believe in relaxing the limitations on co-authorship. I would prefer, like the majority of voters in this thread, to eliminate co-authors in the text of resolutions altogether.

I think the idea of restricting further co-authorships is downright prudish. As for "commission" nations - I discussed that in the above post.

Oh, you do? Downright prudish? Well when you put it that way, it totally outweighs the explicit consensus reached by the previous participants of this discussion. God forbid, we wouldn't want to let a majority decision get in the way of your personal, and incidentally, very unpopular, preference.

Regarding the point about commission nations - you're right, but I didn't mean to say IA brought it up. I meant that this is the first time in this thread that we've discussed that issue.

[Unibot III]

Oh, you do? Downright prudish? Well when you put it that way, it totally outweighs the explicit consensus reached by the previous participants of this discussion. God forbid, we wouldn't want to let a majority decision get in the way of your personal, and incidentally, very unpopular, preference.

Why would we decide anything in the WA by majority decision? We've seen how poorly that works for us. Rules should not express the tastes of the majority, they should be necessary for the GA to function orderly. No one will die, I assure you, if you allow more than one person to co-author a resolution - and if it won't harm, it's excessive to ban the practice.

[Mousebumples]

FYI, I talked with [violet] the other day, and she thought that it would be doable to add a "co-author" field. I was thinking it would make the most sense to just expand out the "Proposed By:" box to have a "Coauthored By:" just below it, but considering that seems to have consensus, I figured it may be useful to discuss the details therein.

So far as the "Regional Working Group," Mall and I actually argued that out yesterday ... among other things. >_> It's a nice thing in theory, but in my experience in various GCRs (and large UCRs) whenever it comes time for collaborative drafting, I've yet to see a significantly large group actually working together on a resolution. Usually it's similar to these threads. One person takes the lead, one person might offer significant suggestions and edits and the like, but most people are posting, "Looks good" or "Nice idea" or "Good luck" or the like. To me, it seems like another avenue for regional recruitment, and we already have enough of those, that I'd just as soon leave that out of the General Assembly, thankyouverymuch

EDIT: Additionally, as was discussed during the discard of Auralia's "WA Charter Group" repeal proposal, saying that a group proposed it, can also give an unfair impression of tremendous support that may or may not actually exist. It's a perception thing, and we all know how easily swayed some of the WA voting sheeple are, right?

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

You can add me to that list. But I don't support co-authors. But some kind of regional cooperation submitted by something like 'European WA Commission' would be nice. It would absolutely help create more activity in the Assembly by making people and their regions invested in this section of the game.

If you mean allowing a nation like "European WA Commission" to submit a resolution, then I agree completely. That's actually a dimension of the discussion that no one's really touched on. I think that rule is arbitrary and can circumscribe our roleplaying opportunities. I should probably refine my argument, for clarity: I don't believe in relaxing the limitations on co-authorship. I would prefer, like the majority of voters in this thread, to eliminate co-authors in the text of resolutions altogether.

The rule isn't about "roleplaying committees"; it's about regions/alliances who ceaselessly pimp their wears in proposals. I guess you weren't around when every repeal authored by an ACCEL member was "co-authored by ACCEL" or "the members of ACCEL," no matter how much the members of ACCEL actually contributed. The membership was very clear about repeals being advertisements for ACCEL as well as instruments for striking out anti-capitalist, anti-sovereigntist legislation.

You drop the rule, the nonsense is only going to start up again - because we all know there's another ACCEL out there who will jump at the opportunity to use the WA for free adspace.

[Sciongrad]

Why would we decide anything in the WA by majority decision? We've seen how poorly that works for us. Rules should not express the tastes of the majority, they should be necessary for the GA to function orderly. No one will die, I assure you, if you allow more than one person to co-author a resolution - and if it won't harm, it's excessive to ban the practice.

While democracy isn't always great (especially in the GA...) I have no idea how else you'd rather we make progress here. I can assure you, having the moderators explicitly overlook consensus would not be a wise choice, considering one of primary catalysts of this entire discussion is how moderators are not responsive to our needs. If we reach overwhelming consensus on an issue, then I think we need to respect that, your views on the merits of democracy notwithstanding. And as I've said before, I do think co-authors are a detriment to the GA culture and I think eliminating them is a necessary step in making the GA function in a more orderly fashion, so it's not merely a personal taste for me. I have no doubt you find that argument unconvincing, but that is for everyone to decide, not you and Mall.

EDIT: Additionally, as was discussed during the discard of Auralia's "WA Charter Group" repeal proposal, saying that a group proposed it, can also give an unfair impression of tremendous support that may or may not actually exist. It's a perception thing, and we all know how easily swayed some of the WA voting sheeple are, right?

I recall someone making a similar argument against moderators being allowed to submit resolutions from their main account exactly because "the sheeple" are easily swayed. Yet I don't remember you taking a corresponding stance on that issue. If the reason behind that rule is to ensure the vote is not influenced by players who, unintentionally or otherwise, exploit the "author" field, wouldn't it logically follow that moderators should not be allowed to propose resolutions from nations that mention their moderator status, which presumably also carry impressions of authority, even in areas of the game where they have none? Another moderator previously made the specious argument that moderators are allowed to participate in roleplaying and in the general forum, and that participating in the GA is just another form of permissible moderator participation, but unlike those more intimate forums where moderators can very explicitly participate in a non-moderator capacity, the impersonal nature of GA voting makes this impossible. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

[Mousebumples]

I recall someone making a similar argument against moderators being allowed to submit resolutions from their main account exactly because "the sheeple" are easily swayed. Yet I don't remember you taking a corresponding stance on that issue. If the reason behind that rule is to ensure the vote is not influenced by players who, unintentionally or otherwise, exploit the "author" field, wouldn't it logically follow that moderators should not be allowed to propose resolutions from nations that mention their moderator status, which presumably also carry impressions of authority, even in areas of the game where they have none? Another moderator previously made the specious argument that moderators are allowed to participate in roleplaying and in the general forum, and that participating in the GA is just another form of permissible moderator participation, but unlike those more intimate forums where moderators can very explicitly participate in a non-moderator capacity, the impersonal nature of GA voting makes this impossible. I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

I don't recall this conversation, so if you could find the link, I'd love to read it, so I could review the objections and counterpoints raised there.

However, I would argue that I passed ... well over a dozen resolutions without being a mod. I had (or have?) a reputation for writing quality legislation and coordinating well with others when I was more active in authoring.

Additionally, requiring me to move my WA status to another nation to submit a proposal would either require me to Multi (which would break WA rules) or force me to resign my high endorsement WA Delegate nation. And that seems colossally unfair, given that [v] and others have always states that mods shall continue to be players as well as mods and will not need to give up how they play NS in order to be on the moderation staff.

Additionally, how often does anyone actually click through on the "author field" on Resolutions At Vote to look at the proposing nation? I certainly don't, and haven't. Mod nation names aren't in any special "color" and our pretitles (not that mine denotes my mod status in any way, at the moment anyhow) don't show up either. I disagree with your premise, overall, so I reject the notion accordingly at the moment.

[Unibot III]

So far as the "Regional Working Group," Mall and I actually argued that out yesterday ... among other things. >_> It's a nice thing in theory, but in my experience in various GCRs (and large UCRs) whenever it comes time for collaborative drafting, I've yet to see a significantly large group actually working together on a resolution. Usually it's similar to these threads. One person takes the lead, one person might offer significant suggestions and edits and the like, but most people are posting, "Looks good" or "Nice idea" or "Good luck" or the like. To me, it seems like another avenue for regional recruitment, and we already have enough of those, that I'd just as soon leave that out of the General Assembly, thankyouverymuch

I don't see how "Regional Working Group" 's are an effective method for regional recruitment at all; it's too much effort and too limited exposure. I know of two historical WA regional working groups, one in Osiris and TSP, that tried to get involved in the WA - and both shut down shortly after being informed they were not allowed to submit their resolutions with puppets that represented their groups. After that setback, there wasn't quite the political will to pursue the groups further. I believe there was a similar story that happened with Capitalist Paradise - but my memory's foggy on the matter.

Similarly, when I was delegate of the Rejected Realms, I was going to create a WA working group, but since I knew that TRR wouldn't be able to really take credit for anything anyways, I asked the Issue Editors if regions could submit issues via a nation account, and when I was given the green-light for that, I preferred the creation of an Issues Working Group. TRR Issues Committee just recently celebrated its first NS Issue added to the game, "Do you Want Fries With That?" (#483) - and has submitted a number of proposed issues. Working groups most definitely can work - especially if they've got a lot of creative, hard-working gameplayers like TRR - and I would suggest the reason why they haven't panned out in the WA is specifically because the WA restricts working groups and their ability to credit resolutions to their regions.

If anything WA working groups should be more successful than Issue working groups since there are significant delays in the editing and processing of issues (from paper to print - 8+ months), whereas a proposal from drafting to passage takes about 3 months and moreover, larger regions have greater means to get resolutions passed than issues (delegate voting powers + allianceships.)

[Excidium Planetis]

I think the only players that have pressed for laxer rules, besides Mall, have been you and GR. I don't know if I'd call that "serious protest." However, both you and Mall are right in acknowledging the serious protests against making the rules laxer. An overwhelming majority of participants in this thread chose to remove co-authors completely from the texts of resolutions. And if our goal is to fashion a ruleset based on the views of the current GA community, then we ought to respect such a rare instance of overwhelming consensus.

What?

Are we looking at the same poll results?

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.)

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)

8 out of 17 voters call for the removal of coauthors from the text, and you not only call that a majority, but an "overwhelming consensus"?

[Sciongrad]

I think the only players that have pressed for laxer rules, besides Mall, have been you and GR. I don't know if I'd call that "serious protest." However, both you and Mall are right in acknowledging the serious protests against making the rules laxer. An overwhelming majority of participants in this thread chose to remove co-authors completely from the texts of resolutions. And if our goal is to fashion a ruleset based on the views of the current GA community, then we ought to respect such a rare instance of overwhelming consensus.

What?

Are we looking at the same poll results?

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)

8 out of 17 voters call for the removal of coauthors from the text, and you not only call that a majority, but an "overwhelming consensus"?

I'll note this this excludes Phydios, the person who conducted this poll, Separatist Peoples, who also indicated a preference for option 1, and Imperium Anglorum who also indicated he would like to see co-authors eliminated. Furthermore, I noted that an overwhelming majority would like to remove co-authors from the text of the resolution, which would include those who voted for option 2a. This means 15 out of 21* participants - more than a super majority - chose to either eliminate co-authors altogether, or to adopt a new co-author field, and a majority (11 out of 21) wanted to remove co-authors altogether.

*Counting Unibot, who was not accounted for in the poll.

EDIT: I'll respond to Mouse's post as soon as I get the chance.

[Excidium Planetis]

What?

Are we looking at the same poll results?



8 out of 17 voters call for the removal of coauthors from the text, and you not only call that a majority, but an "overwhelming consensus"?

I'll note this this excludes Phydios, the person who conducted this poll, Separatist Peoples, who also indicated a preference for option 1, and Imperium Anglorum who also indicated he would like to see co-authors eliminated. Furthermore, I noted that an overwhelming majority would like to remove co-authors from the text of the resolution, which would include those who voted for option 2a. This means 15 out of 21* participants - more than a super majority - chose to either eliminate co-authors altogether, or to adopt a new co-author field, and a majority (11 out of 21) wanted to remove co-authors altogether.

*Counting Unibot, who was not accounted for in the poll.

EDIT: I'll respond to Mouse's post as soon as I get the chance.

Actually, no, 2a does not call for the removal of co-author from the text, it asks for an optional co-author box. Option 5 calls for the removal of co-author from the text and a Co-author box.

So even with Phydios, IA, and SP voting for 1 (and Unibot voting for 4), we only get 11/21 for the elimination of co-authors, which is a simple majority, but not an overwhelming majority.

I'd also argue that because Dark Star Republic and Defwa have ceased to exist their votes shouldn't count. That would make it 10/19.

(Also, Mousebumples appears in favor of co-author boxes, which would probably fall in either 2a or 5. That could make the vote either 12/22 or 11/22, or 11/20 or 10/20 with Defwa and DSR removed. Either way, Mousebumples' vote is significant only if she goes against removing co-author from the text, in which case we would have a 50/50 tie.)

1: 9 (Knootoss, Sciongrad, Snefaldia, Omigodtheyclonedkenny, Tzorsland, Frisbeeteria, Phydios, Separatist Peoples, Imperium Anglorum)
2: None
2a: 4 (Glen-Rhodes, Greater Louisistan, Bears Armed, Railana)
3: 3 (Excidium Planetis, Defwa, Christian Democrats)
4: 3 (Mallorea and Riva, Losthaven, Unibot III)
5: 2 (The Dark Star Republic, Sierra Lyricalia)

[Unibot III]

While democracy isn't always great (especially in the GA...) I have no idea how else you'd rather we make progress here. I can assure you, having the moderators explicitly overlook consensus would not be a wise choice,

First, a consensus has not formed around keeping the rule as is.

Second, the moderators should not consider the community as some sort of likeminded body that we can find "the right way of doing things" by being listening to; there are rule minimalists (people who think the rules should simply be present to keep the GA working) in the GA and rule traditionalists (who believe respect for the rules, however unnecessary, serve to build moral character) - there always have been - and the question for the moderators is whose way of divising the rulesets can be better independently defended. The Co-Author rule has always been one of the most controversial rules because it's the symbolic and ultimate epitome of that divide: the difference between one or two co-authors is in practice unsubstantial, but signals to traditionalists a loss of virtue - IE. people wanting credit for contributing to a resolution.

[Sciongrad]

Actually, no, 2a does not call for the removal of co-author from the text, it asks for an optional co-author box. Option 5 calls for the removal of co-author from the text and a Co-author box.

That's not what that says. 2a proposes creating a separate co-author field which may or not be filled (i.e. optional). It doesn't mean the author can choose whether or not they want to put the co-author credit in the text of the resolution. But nice try!

Option 5 calls for the removal of co-author from the text and a Co-author box.

This is also not correct. Option 5 calls for removing references to co-authors from the text by any means necessary. DSR said creating a separate optional field or eliminating them completely were both viable options.

First, a consensus has not formed around keeping the rule as is.

You're right! A consensus has formed around removing co-authors from the text of the resolution, i.e., a consensus around changing the rule. I'm glad we're on the same page.

Second, the moderators should not consider the community as some sort of likeminded body that we can find "the right way of doing things" by being listening to; there are rule minimalists (people who think the rules should simply be present to keep the GA working) in the GA and rule traditionalists (who believe respect for the rules, however unnecessary, serve to build moral character) - there always have been - and the question for the moderators is whose way of divising the rulesets can be better independently defended. The Co-Author rule has always been one of the most controversial rules because it's the symbolic and ultimate epitome of that divide: the difference between one or two co-authors is in practice unsubstantial, but signals to traditionalists a loss of virtue - IE. people wanting credit for contributing to a resolution.

If you're going to turn this into a "old player" vs. "new player" debate, I have no interest in continuing this discussion with you. I'll note, though, that most of the people who support tightening this rule are relatively new players who have no reason to cling to the "traditions" you're inveighing against. Similarly, among your (very few) political allies in this particular discussion is noted reactionary Mall (no slight against Mall at all, I'm just trying to demonstrate how your argument is non-sense). This analysis is reductive and frankly, a digression toward a topic that everyone is sick of.

And frankly, if you honestly think there are players whose sole objective in this discussion is to create a ruleset that will inculcate the GA community with "virtues" (what virtues?) then I don't know what to say.

EDIT: Typo fatalities: 10. Scion Typical skills: 0.

[Unibot III]

On the contrary, new players have the most reason to honour rules. Showing respect for the system is the quickest way to get respect around these parts; being a good author and not respecting the traditions as though they're the gospel is a long, uphill battle.

And this is most definitely about virtue and character - that's all it ever is about when you hear "another knotch on the belt" comments - some people believe that wanting recognition undermines the spirit or quality of your contribution. It's all some silly concept of "The Good Author" - that's what the anti-co-author folks have always been defending. Their romanticized idea of what authors should value.

And it's all poppycock: a good author is just a good author. And recognition? It's a good thing. People should be recognized for work done.

[Excidium Planetis]

Actually, no, 2a does not call for the removal of co-author from the text, it asks for an optional co-author box. Option 5 calls for the removal of co-author from the text and a Co-author box.

That's not what that says. 2a proposes creating a separate co-author field which may or not be filled (i.e. optional). It doesn't mean the author can choose whether or not they want to put the co-author credit in the text of the resolution. But nice try!

Optiom 2a does not remove the co-authors from the text, and neither states nor implies any such thing. Therefore, yes, option 2a does mean the author can choose whether or not they want to put the co-author credit in the text... Because that is the current rule, and 2 a does not remove that.

Option 5 calls for the removal of co-author from the text and a Co-author box.

This is also not correct. Option 5 calls for removing references to co-authors from the text by any means necessary. DSR said creating a separate optional field or eliminating them completely were both viable options.

Then Option 5 is either as I described or Option 1. It doesn't matter, either way I counted it towards removing co-authors.

First, a consensus has not formed around keeping the rule as is.

You're right! A consensus has formed around removing co-authors from the text of the resolution, i.e., a consensus around changing the rule. I'm glad we're on the same page.

That depends on what definition of consensus you use. If by consensus, you mean simple majority, yes. If by consensus, you mean the general agreement of a group, no.

[Sciongrad]

Optiom 2a does not remove the co-authors from the text, and neither states nor implies any such thing. Therefore, yes, option 2a does mean the author can choose whether or not they want to put the co-author credit in the text... Because that is the current rule, and 2 a does not remove that.

No, it does not say that. I'll explain what it says: option 2a proposes creating an out-of-text field specifically for co-authors, like the current "author" field. It is optional in the sense that authors may choose whether or not to use it depending on whether or not they have co-authors. The function would have no purpose if authors could choose to either use it or place co-authors in the text of the resolution. Under option 2a, co-authors continue to exist, but not in the text of the resolution.

Then Option 5 is either as I described or Option 1. It doesn't matter, either way I counted it towards removing co-authors.

Option 5 was Gruen's particular desire to eliminate co-authors from the text of the resolution entirely. It was essentially an "either option 1 or 2a" choice, because they both eliminated co-authors from the text of resolutions. Gruen even acknowledged that option 2a removes co-authors from the text of the resolution here:

5) Other

Specifically: eliminate coauthors from the text. Whether there's then some additional coauthor box implemented, maybe, maybe not, maybe don't care.

Emphasis mine. The additional coauthor box is exactly what option 2a proposes/

That depends on what definition of consensus you use. If by consensus, you mean simple majority, yes. If by consensus, you mean the general agreement of a group, no.

See above, because including 2a voters, the "remove coauthors from the text" option has a wide consensus.