Advertisement
by USS Monitor » Wed Jul 19, 2017 4:43 pm
by Drasnia » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:04 pm
USS Monitor wrote:So... A possibility that was suggested backstage: keep the rule as is for current staff, but allow former staff to be commended/condemned for their work after they've stepped down.
Was not originally my idea, but I think it's the best of the "middle ground" ideas I've heard so far.
by USS Monitor » Wed Jul 19, 2017 6:38 pm
Drasnia wrote:USS Monitor wrote:So... A possibility that was suggested backstage: keep the rule as is for current staff, but allow former staff to be commended/condemned for their work after they've stepped down.
Was not originally my idea, but I think it's the best of the "middle ground" ideas I've heard so far.
The problem is settling for a "middle ground" isn't at all productive. Whatever ends up being decided - whether to change R1 or keep it as it is - is going to be fairly permanent. Settling is counter-productive. We need a decisive resolution to the interpretation of R1.
And this middle ground doesn't make any sense. It allows for commending people for actions they did as staff. That seems to entirely contradict the intent of R1. A lot of the time, if someone no longer is site staff, they've CTE'd and thus can't be targeted by a C&C. The game only allows targeting active nations. In effect, this middle ground only seeks to appease people like myself while doing effectively nothing.
I firmly believe that the purpose of C&Cs isn't (dis)honoring a player; the purpose is to give the international community examples of what we believe is good and bad behavior. Commends can bring attention to areas of the game that don't get much most of the time. For a community that affects nearly every player, Got Issues is criminally underrepresented. We have made tremendous strides in the past two or three years because finally we got some activity. It is an absolute shame that we can't recognize the many contributions some players have made because they are now editors.
By the current rule's interpretation, we are able to C&C RP mentors and GenSec members, but not issue editors. GenSec members can decide to change the rules of the GA. They have tremendous game-changing powers but they're still able to be C&Cd. Yet editors aren't. Work editors did while still players becomes retroactively illegal once they join the team. How does that make any logical sense?
That also brings me to my next point. The GA has moved to being almost entirely community-driven: moderators no longer rule on legality and only in extremely rare cases remove illegal proposals. That has become GenSec's job. Why can't the SC adopt an approach more similar in spirit? I'm not advocating for an SC-equivalent to GenSec. What I am advocating for is giving players more say in what is and isn't acceptable.
I am not willing to believe that someone who would try to condemn a moderator for doing their job would ever be able to successfully draft a proposal, get it to vote, and pass it. We already have too high of standards. Most of the power in the WA is in the hands of a few delegates, and these delegates are bound by regional laws (or at least have advisers who are better versed in WA affairs) to vote with their region. These regions have many players who have too much respect for thisvenerableinstitution to let it be disrespected by such spurious and stupid bills. Any attempt that ever made it to the floor would be inevitably squashed by GCR delegates.
by Unibot III » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:30 pm
Luna Amore wrote:I think the more compelling question is whether or not we should get rid of Rule 1 entirely.
[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 » Wed Jul 19, 2017 7:42 pm
For the record, "Commend Alasdair I Frosticus" (an Archregimancy puppet) was submitted twice (on the strength of his sports roleplaying and general debating, nothing to do with moderator actions) and got dozens of approvals each time, but failed to make quorum. I don't think "and being a moderator" would have helped it any, even if phrased as "and being a valuable and recognized community leader." I assume that was a legal precedent, though?Unibot III wrote:I'd also expect to see commendations pop up for folks like Euroslavia, Jenrak, and Arch, (as well as Sirocco if he were still playing) whose roles as moderators have often been blurred with their roles in certain communities.
by Unibot III » Wed Jul 19, 2017 8:04 pm
Zwangzug wrote:For the record, "Commend Alasdair I Frosticus" (an Archregimancy puppet) was submitted twice (on the strength of his sports roleplaying and general debating, nothing to do with moderator actions) and got dozens of approvals each time, but failed to make quorum. I don't think "and being a moderator" would have helped it any, even if phrased as "and being a valuable and recognized community leader." I assume that was a legal precedent, though?Unibot III wrote:I'd also expect to see commendations pop up for folks like Euroslavia, Jenrak, and Arch, (as well as Sirocco if he were still playing) whose roles as moderators have often been blurred with their roles in certain communities.
[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 Razil States » Fri Jul 21, 2017 10:50 pm
by Fauxia » Thu Jul 27, 2017 8:46 pm
Yeah, just like GenSec, they aren't site staff, I thinkDrasnia wrote:Mentors can be commended already.
by Greater Cesnica » Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:12 pm
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Greater Cesnica » Sat Aug 05, 2017 3:13 pm
Sic Semper Tyrannis.
WA Discord Server
Authorship Dispatch
WA Ambassador: Slick McCooley
Firearm Rights are Human Rights
privacytools.io - Use these tools to safeguard your online activities, freedoms, and safety
My IFAK and Booboo Kit Starter Guide!
novemberstars#8888 on Discord
San Lumen wrote:You are ridiculous.George Orwell wrote:“That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.”
by Socio Polor » Sat Aug 05, 2017 8:22 pm
by Aclion » Sun Aug 06, 2017 2:40 am
USS Monitor wrote:The thinking behind allowing C&C for former staff, but not current staff, was that if someone has stepped down and is no longer in a position of authority, then commending them can't be construed as an attempt to curry favor.
by Wrapper » Wed Aug 09, 2017 9:28 am
Recognizing NATION as particularly skilled in raising awareness of important topics among the community, including (list of pre-IE issues)
Recognizing NATION for raising awareness of the following important topics among the community: (list of pre-IE issues)
by Consular » Wed Aug 09, 2017 10:15 pm
by Gnejs » Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:22 pm
Wrapper wrote:After some discussion, moderation has decided to allow commendations and condemnations to mention issues written by Issue Editors prior to their appointment as IEs. Since their work as an IE includes writing issues, any issues written once they become IEs cannot be mentioned. Also, C&C authors do need to be careful with their wording. Generic wording that might include work they currently do won't be allowed.
by Drasnia » Wed Aug 09, 2017 11:36 pm
Gnejs wrote:Wrapper wrote:After some discussion, moderation has decided to allow commendations and condemnations to mention issues written by Issue Editors prior to their appointment as IEs. Since their work as an IE includes writing issues, any issues written once they become IEs cannot be mentioned. Also, C&C authors do need to be careful with their wording. Generic wording that might include work they currently do won't be allowed.
"Written" means submitted, right? Or do you mean published, as in when they're actually made apart of the game? Important difference there. You must mean submitted, for sure.
So if I wanted to commend, or condemn, CWA, I could include a mentioning of #774 (submitted about a month before he was made editor, published a week or so ago), but not #739 (submitted May of this year, published a month ago, give or take), is that correct? And about 90% of his 2 billion submitted drafts are from his pre-editor days. These, whenever they're published, would also be fair game, right?
You're probably going to need to hire an editor as an SC-consultant to keep track of these things!
by USS Monitor » Thu Aug 10, 2017 12:32 am
Drasnia wrote:Gnejs wrote:"Written" means submitted, right? Or do you mean published, as in when they're actually made apart of the game? Important difference there. You must mean submitted, for sure.
So if I wanted to commend, or condemn, CWA, I could include a mentioning of #774 (submitted about a month before he was made editor, published a week or so ago), but not #739 (submitted May of this year, published a month ago, give or take), is that correct? And about 90% of his 2 billion submitted drafts are from his pre-editor days. These, whenever they're published, would also be fair game, right?
You're probably going to need to hire an editor as an SC-consultant to keep track of these things!
Asking an editor: How does being an editor affect issues you've written after becoming an editor - in a "how does this become an action as site staff" sort of way? If you aren't editing it, how does it still count as R1?
by Wrapper » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:07 am
Gnejs wrote:"Written" means submitted, right? Or do you mean published, as in when they're actually made apart of the game? Important difference there. You must mean submitted, for sure.
So if I wanted to commend, or condemn, CWA, I could include a mentioning of #774 (submitted about a month before he was made editor, published a week or so ago), but not #739 (submitted May of this year, published a month ago, give or take), is that correct? And about 90% of his 2 billion submitted drafts are from his pre-editor days. These, whenever they're published, would also be fair game, right?
by Helaw » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:40 am
USS Monitor wrote:Drasnia wrote:Asking an editor: How does being an editor affect issues you've written after becoming an editor - in a "how does this become an action as site staff" sort of way? If you aren't editing it, how does it still count as R1?
Having access to the editing room means you can see discussions about what the game needs. Sometimes that means you know that there is a demand for an issue on a particular topic before that gets announced publicly. Sometimes you know stuff that never does get announced publicly. Even if you didn't personally edit an issue, you might still have participated in a backstage conversation that was related in some way.
Decisions about which issue to work on, or which issue to use when there are two submissions on the same topic, are sometimes influenced by whether it is a staff issue or a player submission. This sometimes works in favor of regular players, like, "He's a new author; let's give him some encouragement," but there still is a distinction being made between staff issues and player issues. If an editor's issue gets deleted, they have the ability to see that it was deleted and react to that -- and possibly try to salvage the issue, depending on the situation -- whereas a regular player wouldn't know when it got deleted.
Even if it's not a self-edit, you just have a lot more access to the process.
by Unibot III » Thu Aug 10, 2017 4:42 am
Wrapper wrote:Gnejs wrote:"Written" means submitted, right? Or do you mean published, as in when they're actually made apart of the game? Important difference there. You must mean submitted, for sure.
I meant "written" as "submitted" but....So if I wanted to commend, or condemn, CWA, I could include a mentioning of #774 (submitted about a month before he was made editor, published a week or so ago), but not #739 (submitted May of this year, published a month ago, give or take), is that correct? And about 90% of his 2 billion submitted drafts are from his pre-editor days. These, whenever they're published, would also be fair game, right?
...but now I'm not so sure that should be the case. I'm thinking "published" is a better option. An IE can write and submit an issue, become an IE, and then take part in the discussion and have at least some influence on the text or stats for the issue before it is published. Also, it would be relatively easy for moderation to determine when an IE was made an IE and when that IE's issues were published, without needing to "hire an editor as an SC-consultant to keep track of these things". It's a clearer-cut line, wouldn't you agree?
[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 USS Monitor » Thu Aug 10, 2017 10:35 am
Helaw wrote:USS Monitor wrote:
Having access to the editing room means you can see discussions about what the game needs. Sometimes that means you know that there is a demand for an issue on a particular topic before that gets announced publicly. Sometimes you know stuff that never does get announced publicly. Even if you didn't personally edit an issue, you might still have participated in a backstage conversation that was related in some way.
I have to disagree with this sentiment. While I can certainly understand it if an Issue is drafted exclusively backstage (this being the case with chains, though these are self-edits and would not be permitted anyway), most are drafted fully in the public eye. When an Issue is needed in terms of subject matter and happens to have only been mentioned backstage, the community is told about it and it is added to the list of Issue ideas on GI; anything less goes against convention and should be criticised, which does happen where appropriate. This also applies to policy reversal Issues, with the very rare exception of situations where the policy is a deliberate secret due to being associated with other projects. While an Editor would obviously have a head-start, it would hardly be a substantial one and any submissions received would be judged on merit rather than position.Decisions about which issue to work on, or which issue to use when there are two submissions on the same topic, are sometimes influenced by whether it is a staff issue or a player submission. This sometimes works in favor of regular players, like, "He's a new author; let's give him some encouragement," but there still is a distinction being made between staff issues and player issues. If an editor's issue gets deleted, they have the ability to see that it was deleted and react to that -- and possibly try to salvage the issue, depending on the situation -- whereas a regular player wouldn't know when it got deleted.
Even if it's not a self-edit, you just have a lot more access to the process.
Staff Issues are only ever selected based on merit, and even then they are often set aside in favour of player-submitted Issues. From my point of view, if it isn't based on the quality of the Issue itself, then clearly the Editor that made the decision is at fault. This ideal is already the consensus backstage I feel, though with a bias towards non-Editor submissions due to, as you said, a desire to encourage new authors to write more often.
Sure, Editors can salvage their own Issues. However, they won't be given preferential treatment in terms of having their Issue accepted, and will find that badly-written Issues are not picked up. I do not think that this is a major problem, as players are always welcome to work on their own Issues after submission, and can request to have their newer submission reviewed (I believe that I did this myself at one point before becoming an Editor). This isn't communicated very well, and I personally would like to see more communication between authors and backstage workings; even if it's only automated*. I certainly don't see the current situation as being grounds to rule out post-Editorship work, as there isn't any such thing as "being in the know" here.
* Perhaps a telegram along the lines of, "Unfortunately, your Issue was not accepted due to the following reasons:" followed by some concise points given by the Editor that made the decision. This would certainly encourage proper judgement and reviewal on the part of the Editing team, and it would let authors know how to improve their submissions. It wouldn't be associated with any particular Editor in the eyes of the author either, due to the automated nature of it. I already see some Editors detailing why they delete some submissions backstage.
by Helaw » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:39 am
USS Monitor wrote:Even if editors generally DON'T abuse their backstage access for personal gain -- and I would agree that you guys don't -- that doesn't mean you CAN'T. There's a difference between something being discouraged by community convention and something being literally impossible because you don't have access to the relevant parts of the site.
And no, most issues are not drafted fully in the public eye. A lot of issues have drafting threads on the public forum, but it is normal for additional editing to happen backstage after it is submitted.
Sure, Editors can salvage their own Issues. However, they won't be given preferential treatment in terms of having their Issue accepted, and will find that badly-written Issues are not picked up. I do not think that this is a major problem, as players are always welcome to work on their own Issues after submission, and can request to have their newer submission reviewed (I believe that I did this myself at one point before becoming an Editor). This isn't communicated very well, and I personally would like to see more communication between authors and backstage workings; even if it's only automated*. I certainly don't see the current situation as being grounds to rule out post-Editorship work, as there isn't any such thing as "being in the know" here.
by Frisbeeteria » Thu Aug 10, 2017 11:48 am
Helaw wrote:We have a Senior Editor for a reason, along with the presence of Issues Mods. If we are to make the assumption that the team would happily abuse their access if they underwent a change of heart, we should not forget the fact that there are multiple figures of oversight that would stand against it.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: No registered users
Advertisement