Wrapper wrote:I'll shake up the hornet's nest and see what comes out.
Cheers, Wrapper. Knew I liked you.
Advertisement
by Unibot III » Sat Jul 15, 2017 1:10 pm
Wrapper wrote:I'll shake up the hornet's nest and see what comes out.
[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 Luna Amore » Sat Jul 15, 2017 9:57 pm
Wrapper wrote:I'll shake up the hornet's nest and see what comes out.
by Bears Armed » Sun Jul 16, 2017 4:01 am
by Aclion » Sun Jul 16, 2017 3:57 pm
by Frisbeeteria » Sun Jul 16, 2017 6:52 pm
I'd be OK with people commending IEs for writing issues as long as they had some issues published before they became an IE, and any references to individual issues refer to the issues published before becoming an IE. I'm not an SC person, though, which is why I didn't get into this discussion earlier and my opinion probably shouldn't carry too much weight.
It's really down to two reasons:
1) Their work as an issues author is very clearly the reason why they have become an Issues Editor. Thus, it's a Commendation-by-proxy of their work as an Issues Editor. And the flip side to that is that a Condemnation of someone's issues authoring is a Condemnation of an Issues Editor's work as an Editor. It's a "this was a bad decision to make them an IE" vote. Staff members should not up for that kind of public (dis)approval vote.
2) Their work as an author overlaps with that as an Editor. IEs can now add their own issues, so even if they wrote / submitted something prior to being IEd, if it's added later, they are likely to have given input on it as a staff member. Furthermore, their issues authoring even added before being IEd may have been part of a trial. Added to that, every time someone tried to evade Rule 1 for IEs before this modification to it, they tried to use wording that could also be read as referring to their role after being IEd. "Noting that Examplestan has presented several interesting issues before national governments" -- well that can clearly refer to that which they've wrote / edited since being IEd.
The big problem here is that the type of work done before becoming an IE is similar as to the type of work after attaining the position. This unlike mods for example.
It gets into a blurry line, because the distinction between the two bodies of work is not clear, except in chronology.
by Drasnia » Sun Jul 16, 2017 8:23 pm
Frisbeeteria wrote:-snip-
by Helaw » Mon Jul 17, 2017 11:22 am
I know I'm the one that opened this up for discussion, but I was never in favor of this change. I see commendations as a way to bring attention to deserving nations who might otherwise be missed by the NS public. Staff members (Mods, IEs, Mentors, and Gensec members) get plenty of attention as it is. They interact heavily with their target audiences. They are generally well known.
Yes, most of them had contributions to make prior to being asked to join the Staff, but they earned recognition by the very act of being asked to join. They get badges on their nations proclaiming their roles. They get a colored name on the forums. That's actually more than a C&C nation gets. Isn't it enough?
1) Their work as an issues author is very clearly the reason why they have become an Issues Editor. Thus, it's a Commendation-by-proxy of their work as an Issues Editor. And the flip side to that is that a Condemnation of someone's issues authoring is a Condemnation of an Issues Editor's work as an Editor. It's a "this was a bad decision to make them an IE" vote. Staff members should not up for that kind of public (dis)approval vote.
2) Their work as an author overlaps with that as an Editor. IEs can now add their own issues, so even if they wrote / submitted something prior to being IEd, if it's added later, they are likely to have given input on it as a staff member.
Furthermore, their issues authoring even added before being IEd may have been part of a trial.
Added to that, every time someone tried to evade Rule 1 for IEs before this modification to it, they tried to use wording that could also be read as referring to their role after being IEd. "Noting that Examplestan has presented several interesting issues before national governments" -- well that can clearly refer to that which they've wrote / edited since being IEd.
The big problem here is that the type of work done before becoming an IE is similar as to the type of work after attaining the position. This unlike mods for example.
by Unibot III » Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:36 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 Zwangzug » Mon Jul 17, 2017 5:10 pm
I agree with the principle in bold, but not the conclusions elsewhere in your post. It would be great to have some fair and sensible guidelines about what can and can't be included in a commendation, but not at the cost of creating needless bureaucracy for its own sake, and potentially rushing shoddy resolutions through on arbitrary deadlines.Unibot III wrote:It may seem silly to go through the effort of reaching a compromise, but commendations are the SC's "bread and butter" - and the role of 'community leaders' has grown immensely (Editors, Mentors, Secretariat, Tech) which complicates Rule I a lot since the types of people we want to commend are traditionally the types of people who are recruited for these positions.
by Unibot III » Mon Jul 17, 2017 8:43 pm
If we set arbitrary dates for when the precedents are/aren't in effect, I worry that that could lead to drafts rushed through for the sake of the timeline and not because they're of appropriate quality. Why 1 and 1.5 rather than 1.5 and 1 or .75 and 1.25 or (some other repeating fractions)? Arbitrariness? To get your name on a rule?
[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 Zwangzug » Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:07 pm
When is an editor retired? When they say they are? When they stop logging in? When they CTE? When their issues get dibsed by others? What if they're lurking under a puppet?Unibot III wrote:2. From then on out, an exemption for commending non-IA issue work for Issue Authors up to and until 1 year as an IE, or after 1 year post-retirement. (Again, arbitrary but straightforward.)
I don't entirely understand what the first sentence means? The current approach makes it tough to recognize people?I'm suggesting a bureaucratic answer to break up a logjam because an exemption system will soften the blow of a tough-on-recognition approach. A tie moderator vote probably will leave us stuck with a status quo that will tangle up SC authors - that is, unless a compromise is found. It's not common that moderators back down fully once a decision has been made, but a tie suggests there's room, at least, for some compromise.
Has NationStates ever had a rule of "we think this action is [good/bad] so here's the deal, you can only do it some of the time, that'll satisfy enough people"? Has that ever worked well?Would I prefer no rule at all? Yes, but the newbie in me who witnessed the Rule IV debates (and organized the protest group) is skeptical an outright resistance to this Rule I expansion will be successful. All I'm saying is, if moderators want to ban us from commending editors, at least give us some time to commend them - it's not as though we know who's going to become editors before they're editors.
by Bears Armed » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:07 am
Zwangzug wrote:Has NationStates ever had a rule of "we think this action is [good/bad] so here's the deal, you can only do it some of the time, that'll satisfy enough people"? Has that ever worked well?
by Consular » Tue Jul 18, 2017 6:55 am
Frisbeeteria wrote:I know I'm the one that opened this up for discussion, but I was never in favor of this change. I see commendations as a way to bring attention to deserving nations who might otherwise be missed by the NS public. Staff members (Mods, IEs, Mentors, and Gensec members) get plenty of attention as it is. They interact heavily with their target audiences. They are generally well known.
Yes, most of them had contributions to make prior to being asked to join the Staff, but they earned recognition by the very act of being asked to join. They get badges on their nations proclaiming their roles. They get a colored name on the forums. That's actually more than a C&C nation gets. Isn't it enough?
Frisbeeteria wrote:Their work as an issues author is very clearly the reason why they have become an Issues Editor. Thus, it's a Commendation-by-proxy of their work as an Issues Editor.
by Helaw » Tue Jul 18, 2017 7:04 am
by Unibot III » Wed Jul 19, 2017 9:47 am
[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 Luna Amore » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:22 am
Helaw wrote:If we're using "You already have some sort of badge" as an argument to justify not C&C'ing Editors, then why does this not apply to GenSec members? To Mentors? To Authors? Users that author WA proposals and Issues already have a badge to certify recognition for their contributions,
Helaw wrote:2) Their work as an author overlaps with that as an Editor. IEs can now add their own issues, so even if they wrote / submitted something prior to being IEd, if it's added later, they are likely to have given input on it as a staff member.
They are still giving input, in this case, as the author. Members of the team often telegram the author during the Editing process (especially if it is a heavy edit), which gives non-Editors the same opportunity (not to mention the fact that one can always lend some direct advice regarding their submission to the Editors one way or another regardless). It's a convention backstage to not give much (usually any) input on edits of one's own Issues. To be fair, though, this is a convention that I have spoken out against before. I'm just noting its existence here.
Helaw wrote:Furthermore, their issues authoring even added before being IEd may have been part of a trial.
I don't understand the point behind this. If you mean that someone's Issue could have been used in a trial for someone else, then I fail to see how this is relevant. If you mean that someone's Issue could have been used for their own trial (i.e. "Edit your own pre-existing Issue."), then it would practically be a self-edit and shouldn't be counted anyway. If you mean that someone's writing was actually a part of a trial (i.e. "Write an issue about benches as a part of your trial."), then we don't do that anyway.
by USS Monitor » Wed Jul 19, 2017 11:58 am
Luna Amore wrote:Helaw wrote:I don't understand the point behind this. If you mean that someone's Issue could have been used in a trial for someone else, then I fail to see how this is relevant. If you mean that someone's Issue could have been used for their own trial (i.e. "Edit your own pre-existing Issue."), then it would practically be a self-edit and shouldn't be counted anyway. If you mean that someone's writing was actually a part of a trial (i.e. "Write an issue about benches as a part of your trial."), then we don't do that anyway.
There's no set way to become an IE.
For instance, my first five issues were written for a quasi-contest the (then) new IE team started back in December 2011. Three of those were accepted and added to the game before Sedge asked me to join the team. I had no interaction with GI before that. Those five issues are the only justification for being promoted to IE. Should that trial be considered fair game or not considering? Should someone be able to condemn me based on those five issues knowing full well that those are the basis of my IE status?
by Luna Amore » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:45 pm
by Drasnia » Wed Jul 19, 2017 12:53 pm
Luna Amore wrote:I think the more compelling question is whether or not we should get rid of Rule 1 entirely.
by Drasnia » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:13 pm
Crazy girl wrote:That would just create a grey area.
by Crazy girl » Wed Jul 19, 2017 3:36 pm
by USS Monitor » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:05 pm
Luna Amore wrote:I think the more compelling question is whether or not we should get rid of Rule 1 entirely.
by Drasnia » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:10 pm
Crazy girl wrote:That is definitely not happening, approval or disapproval of staff roles are not up for popular vote.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement