Advertisement
by Abhichandra » Thu Mar 16, 2017 8:01 am
Helaw wrote:If people are generally happy with the proposal in its current state, it will be submitted soon.
by Tinhampton » Fri Mar 17, 2017 8:38 am
by Crazy girl » Fri Mar 17, 2017 11:29 pm
Sedgistan wrote:
Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.
by Drasnia » Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:13 am
by Helaw » Sat Mar 18, 2017 2:02 am
Crazy girl wrote:Sedgistan wrote:
Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.
I think you missed this. Deleted for rule 1.
Helaw wrote:Sedgistan wrote:The post of mine that Todd links to is quite an old one and probably needs clarifying. Issues Editing (as an Issues Editor) is something you cannot cite in a resolution at all, due to Rule 1. Editing done by a regular player (e.g. as feedback in Got Issues) can be cited.
Generally issues authoring is something that you can commend for. However, recent policy changes in the editing team that give staff members more freedom to add their own issues means that issues authoring by Issues Editors is almost a staff function now.
Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.
2 of the 13 issues that CWA has authored have been edited by him, leaving 11 that he has authored outwith self-edits. Because of this, I believe that his non-editing contributions are still very much noteworthy, and his constant help in the GI forum is not something that is explicitly demanded of him as an Editor.
If a large portion of an Editor's authored issues are self-edits, I believe that is a valid situation for a commendation to be illegal if it cites them. However, I also believe that if an Editor's issues are largely non-self-edited and their contributions reach further than editing / authoring to a fair extent, then it should be perfectly reasonable to commend them. Because of the nature of self-edits and how they still require the input and approval of the team (to a larger extent than normal edits, naturally), it may be reasonable to set a hard cap of [x]% of an Editor's issues being self-edited before that can no longer be used as an argument in favour of commending them; leaving only GI contributions and any other things. Perhaps I'm just waffling.
The line "Further impressed that, on numerous occasions, Candlewhisper Archive has sought to refine the writings of other nations regarding these political issues in order to make them more coherent and interesting," is problematic. This can be taken as him editing issues or it can be taken as helping people draft in GI - both of which violate R1 I would think.
by Aclion » Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:45 pm
Helaw wrote:snip
by Sedgistan » Tue Mar 21, 2017 3:52 pm
by Australian rePublic » Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:11 am
by Helaw » Thu Mar 30, 2017 4:22 am
Australian Republic wrote:Oh come on. It says you can't nominate a staff member for their job. I was told not to do that
by Unibot III » Thu Mar 30, 2017 2:47 pm
Sedgistan wrote:The post of mine that Todd links to is quite an old one and probably needs clarifying. Issues Editing (as an Issues Editor) is something you cannot cite in a resolution at all, due to Rule 1. Editing done by a regular player (e.g. as feedback in Got Issues) can be cited.
Generally issues authoring is something that you can commend for. However, recent policy changes in the editing team that give staff members more freedom to add their own issues means that issues authoring by Issues Editors is almost a staff function now.
Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Aclion » Wed Apr 05, 2017 3:04 am
Unibot III wrote:snip
by USS Monitor » Sun Apr 09, 2017 6:59 pm
by Luna Amore » Sun Apr 09, 2017 8:32 pm
Unibot III wrote:Sedgistan wrote:The post of mine that Todd links to is quite an old one and probably needs clarifying. Issues Editing (as an Issues Editor) is something you cannot cite in a resolution at all, due to Rule 1. Editing done by a regular player (e.g. as feedback in Got Issues) can be cited.
Generally issues authoring is something that you can commend for. However, recent policy changes in the editing team that give staff members more freedom to add their own issues means that issues authoring by Issues Editors is almost a staff function now.
Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.
Sedge - is it possible that we might just rewrite Rule 1 to not include non-moderators? The real intention of that rule was to block condemnations of moderators for moderation activities and stop people from patting the backs of moderators for ... essentially doing what moderation entails.
Since Rule 1 was put in place we've continue to extend non-moderation staff: RP mentors, Issue Editors, Tech support and now the WA Secretariat. The latter even has a quasi-roleplay element to it. In these cases, the volunteer work is blurred with their community contributions - and this severely limits the number of players commendable for their community contributions. It's generally the big community leaders (the people most likely to be nominated) that get tapped for community roles (like mentors, editors.) So it's kind of weird to have a commendation system where the people most likely to be nominated are excluded. It's also a system that favours gameplay, since they're the only community in NS without staff-like roles - our leading players aren't being excluded in the same manner.
In my mind, Rule 1 should apply only to community contributions that other players cannot provide - nobody but moderators can moderate. But anyone is allowed to roleplay and mentor other roleplayers, anyone (above 500 pop) can write and edit issues, anybody can help the site admins with tech advice and anybody can draft resolutions and work in the WA there. So regardless of your title, you should be available to be commended for your work in an NS community.
I have a feeling we're extending a rule to the point of absurdity. It should be limited to moderators as it was intended.
Unibot III wrote:SkyDip wrote:Except they are game staff?
Not neccesarily; "game staff" is whatever we consider game staff.
Perhaps the distinction is that these players aren't enforcing the rules or running the system, they're helping to contribute to the game's activities (issues, roleplay).
My gut says that what Luna Amore has been doing with issues is praiseworthy and something that should be open for commendation -- my only explanation of why I differentiate Luna's actions from mod and admin staff is that their contributions have been to the game's cultural activities, as opposed to simply enforcing and maintaining the structure of the game. Does that make sense?
It's a philosophical exploration of what Rule 1 is really trying to prohibit.
On the other hand, perhaps Rule 1's basis is negative in a sense: we wouldn't want someone condemned for their actions as a moderator, admin or issue editor or trainers -- and because it'd be weird to ban condemning them for it, but allowing them to be commended for it... inadvertently Rule 1 covers both the commendation and condemnation of staff activities. In which, it's easy to identify issue editors as staff on the basis we wouldn't want to see anyone condemned for editing issues.
EDIT: My last argument has me convinced, so I'm going to agree with Sedge and say Rule 1 should apply for Issue Editors, because it'd be really bad to see someone condemned for contributing to the game as an Issue Editor (e.g., "EERG, SIROCCO WHY U EDIT MY ISSUE LIKE THAT???").
by Unibot III » Sat Apr 15, 2017 8:06 am
Luna Amore wrote:Unibot, argue against past Unibot!
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Helaw » Sat Apr 15, 2017 9:19 am
Unibot III wrote:In the context of Candlewhisper Archive, if we were to determine Rule I did cover resolutions now for Issue Editors because their self-editing powers gives them an "unfair" advantage, Candlewhisper Archive's past work prior to the change should be "grandfathered."
by Unibot III » Sat Apr 15, 2017 4:38 pm
Helaw wrote:Unibot III wrote:In the context of Candlewhisper Archive, if we were to determine Rule I did cover resolutions now for Issue Editors because their self-editing powers gives them an "unfair" advantage, Candlewhisper Archive's past work prior to the change should be "grandfathered."
I personally don't believe that it grants an unfair advantage. It has been deliberately designed backstage to be a rare and demanding occurrence (one self-edit out of every ten edits), and they require a higher degree of team approval than normal edits to be added to the game. This outweighs the fact that Editors can work on their own Issues and choose them specifically; If an Issue is good enough to be worked on by a different Editor anyway, then the edit will likely be approved of by a greater number of Editors, and meet less resistance than it otherwise would when it comes to being added to the game. A horrible staff Issue isn't going to be edited by someone else, nor is it likely to make it into the game - much like normal submissions. If self-edits had no such limits or stigma, then I would completely agree that it could be considered unfair.
It is objectively easier to have a good submission added if you are any other player than it is if you are an Editor. This is the reason why there are over a hundred very high-quality issues sitting in the Staff folder, untouched. While self-edits shouldn't necessarily be something that you can mention in a commendation when it comes to naming Issues, they certainly shouldn't be the catalyst for ruling that you can't commend Editors at all for anything to do with Issues. Furthermore, the idea of a "You edit my Issue, I edit yours," deal backstage is completely out of the question, and it is explicitly requested that Editors that receive such a request report it immediately. This removes another element of potential unfairness.
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Helaw » Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:30 am
by Willania Imperium » Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:16 pm
by Fauxia » Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:36 pm
by Lord Dominator » Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:35 pm
by Unibot III » Wed Nov 01, 2017 7:20 pm
[violet] wrote:I mean this in the best possible way,
but Unibot is not a typical NS player.
Milograd wrote:You're a caring, resolute lunatic
with the best of intentions.
by Europe and Oceania » Thu Nov 02, 2017 11:04 am
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement