[PASSED] Commend Candlewhisper Archive

[Drasnia]

We oppose this.

Any reason why?

[Aclion]

I don't think authoring three issues is sufficient reason to commend someone.

[Fauxia]

I don't think authoring three issues is sufficient reason to commend someone.

Luckily, CWA’s written 32 and counting, that said, I believe only 5 are eligible for the commendation. I would love a commendation for CWA, but am not sure I will vote for this.

[Frisbeeteria]

I don't think authoring three issues is sufficient reason to commend someone.

As opposed to raiding or roleplaying? There's a ton of work involved, probably more than most suspect ... and it impacts everyone in the game. It's absolutely worth a commendation.

It's a shame R1 won't let us recognize the work CWA has done as Senior Issues Editor, because that's been absolutely MASSIVE. There is an incredible amount behind-the-scenes stuff being done by them. Whether the SC recognizes them or not, I want it clearly understood that staff members are pretty much in awe of the work being done by the Issues team under CWA's leadership. Despite this proposal necessarily being limited to the 3 or 5 issues created before they joined the team, it's still worthy of SC recognition.

[States of Glory]

We oppose this.

Any reason why?

Don't bother asking. They never give any reasons.

[Abhichandra]

This is now at vote.

I'm voting For. CWA has authored so many issues, but as Fris said, you can only mention the five they did before becoming staff per rule one. Still, five issues is a lot. CWA has also helped people everyday with their drafts and has consistently provided feedback on every single draft in the GI forum, and, again, as Fris said, CWA has worked tirelessly back-stage to work on issues and issue effects for the benefit of the overall community.

[Luna Amore]

I don't think authoring three issues is sufficient reason to commend someone.

As opposed to raiding or roleplaying? There's a ton of work involved, probably more than most suspect ... and it impacts everyone in the game. It's absolutely worth a commendation.

It's a shame R1 won't let us recognize the work CWA has done as Senior Issues Editor, because that's been absolutely MASSIVE. There is an incredible amount behind-the-scenes stuff being done by them. Whether the SC recognizes them or not, I want it clearly understood that staff members are pretty much in awe of the work being done by the Issues team under CWA's leadership. Despite this proposal necessarily being limited to the 3 or 5 issues created before they joined the team, it's still worthy of SC recognition.

I couldn't agree more.

[Talmovay]

Didn't read, but voted against. Celebrating others achievements while ive done nothing is unfair. We should be giving me an award.

[Shwe Tu Colony]

Didn't read, but voted against. Celebrating others achievements while ive done nothing is unfair. We should be giving me an award.

I'll bite: do you truly believe this or is there a joke I'm failing to understand?

[Wallenburg]

I am afraid that I do not find a nation commend-worthy simply for writing issues.

[Drasnia]

I am afraid that I do not find a nation commend-worthy simply for writing issues.

So would only passing WA legislation not be commend-worthy either?

[Wallenburg]

I am afraid that I do not find a nation commend-worthy simply for writing issues.

So would only passing WA legislation not be commend-worthy either?

Correct. And before you cite "Commend Separatist Peoples", be aware that it commends SP for roleplay contributions extending well beyond WA legislation.

[Drasnia]

So would only passing WA legislation not be commend-worthy either?

Correct. And before you cite "Commend Separatist Peoples", be aware that it commends SP for roleplay contributions extending well beyond WA legislation.

Well I fundamentally disagree with you. Yours is a very short-sighted view point. Issues and GA legislation have the most far-reaching effects of anything in the game. If anything, that should make them worth even more.

[Wallenburg]

Correct. And before you cite "Commend Separatist Peoples", be aware that it commends SP for roleplay contributions extending well beyond WA legislation.

Well I fundamentally disagree with you. Yours is a very short-sighted view point. Issues and GA legislation have the most far-reaching effects of anything in the game. If anything, that should make them worth even more.

Issues are the things I usually ignore up at the top of my nation page, and GA legislation is RP that only really a small handful of people pay attention to. That makes them among the least impressive things in this game.

[Talmovay]

Didn't read, but voted against. Celebrating others achievements while ive done nothing is unfair. We should be giving me an award.

I'll bite: do you truly believe this or is there a joke I'm failing to understand?

It's a joke

[Aclion]

I don't think authoring three issues is sufficient reason to commend someone.

As opposed to raiding or roleplaying? There's a ton of work involved, probably more than most suspect ... and it impacts everyone in the game. It's absolutely worth a commendation.

It's a shame R1 won't let us recognize the work CWA has done as Senior Issues Editor, because that's been absolutely MASSIVE. There is an incredible amount behind-the-scenes stuff being done by them. Whether the SC recognizes them or not, I want it clearly understood that staff members are pretty much in awe of the work being done by the Issues team under CWA's leadership. Despite this proposal necessarily being limited to the 3 or 5 issues created before they joined the team, it's still worthy of SC recognition.

That's great, but that's it's not (and cannot be) in the proposal and thus cannot be used to judge the proposals merit. I'm not saying CWA isn't commendable(though I could make that argument) I'm saying what is presented in the proposal(you remember that? That's the thing we're actually voting on) is not commendable.

The whole point of disallowing mentions of staff activity was so that we wouldn't commend staff for being staff. But what's the point if we're just going to commend for it anyway?


Edit: annd it looks like CWA is against it as well. So I don't even have to feel bad about not commending him.

[Sunstruck]

Flo and Squee support this.

[Helaw]

As opposed to raiding or roleplaying? There's a ton of work involved, probably more than most suspect ... and it impacts everyone in the game. It's absolutely worth a commendation.

It's a shame R1 won't let us recognize the work CWA has done as Senior Issues Editor, because that's been absolutely MASSIVE. There is an incredible amount behind-the-scenes stuff being done by them. Whether the SC recognizes them or not, I want it clearly understood that staff members are pretty much in awe of the work being done by the Issues team under CWA's leadership. Despite this proposal necessarily being limited to the 3 or 5 issues created before they joined the team, it's still worthy of SC recognition.

That's great, but that's it's not (and cannot be) in the proposal and thus cannot be used to judge the proposals merit. I'm not saying CWA isn't commendable(though I could make that argument) I'm saying what is presented in the proposal(you remember that? That's the thing we're actually voting on) is not commendable.

The whole point of disallowing mentions of staff activity was so that we wouldn't commend staff for being staff. But what's the point if we're just going to commend for it anyway?

I posit that voters often vote against resolutions due to external factors, such as their relationship with the nominee or author. Case-in-point: TWP. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that the same happens in the other direction, and that it should. It may not be possible to commend staff for staff actions (and rightly so; it would be arguably unfair otherwise), but recognising staff actions as important contributions to the site regardless of whether or not they can be mentioned in a resolution is an important responsibility that each voter has. You may be voting on the resolution, but you as an individual decide if the nominee in particular should be commended, based on both what is described in the resolution itself, and on what isn't. That's the whole point behind the Condemn / Commend system: Personal opinion. If we somehow - impossibly - banned voting on things due to external factors, the SC would become both boring and extremely one-sided in every situation. It would boil down to the same old arbitrary question each time, "Is this resolution a good one?". The top SC boffins would set the standard and thus make the decision for the voters, and that's not fun.

Basically, I'm saying that factors outside of what has been mentioned in a resolution make things juicy and interesting. In my opinion, you are both voting on the quality of this resolution, and on whether or not CWA is enough of a cool-cat to have a neat badge saying so on his lapel. The balance is key, and from my point of view, CWA's non-mentioned contributions are more than enough to excuse a resolution that is rather short due to legal reasons.

Edit: annd it looks like CWA is against it as well. So I don't even have to feel bad about not commending him.

Proposal: CWA voted on the resolution the way he did because of the external factor known as "top-quality banter".


Unrelated: For anyone looking for some raw numbers to consider when deciding how to vote, CWA has authored 32 Issues and has edited 120, at the time of writing.

[Karkra]

I would just like to say that since Candlewhisper Archive themselves voted against this proposal, I will too.

[Queer AnComville]

Noting that CWA itself voted against this resolution, the Collective has opted to vote against.

[Shidar]

15 minutes ago: Helaw voted against the World Assembly Resolution "Commend Candlewhisper Archive".

I'm just going to leave this here.

[Rude Admins]

Candlewhisper Archive should not be commended. This country inaccurately represents the NationStates community. Many of the issues written by this country have caused irreparable damage to many countries throughout NationStates due to the country's socialist bias in writing these issues.

[Alusi]

Wait... I thought you couldn't Commend or Condemn a nation that wrote issues. Or maybe it was game moderators.
Eh whatever I support it.

[Drasnia]

Wait... I thought you couldn't Commend or Condemn a nation that wrote issues. Or maybe it was game moderators.
Eh whatever I support it.

You can commend people for writing issues. See my commendation as evidence.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Hello!

I know its horribly gauche to comment on your own commendation thread but here goes.

I'd like to say thanks to Helaw, and his show of friendship by putting this commendation together not once but twice. I'd also like to point out that while I'd be very happy and grateful to receive a commendation, I also totally understand that these things are as much about how diplomatic and nice to folk you are as anything else, which I gotta admit I'm not really great at.

Anyway, Aclion is right. Part of me voting against the Commendation is because I don't want anyone to feel bad for opposing it for whatever reason, be it whether they think staff shouldn't be commended, or because they dislike my work, or because they don't agree with the idea of commendations at all, or because I'm happily on the Defender side of the r/d argument, or because I'm a game reformer rather than a preserver of the status quo, or because I riled them up with some nasty comment at some stage.

If the proposal passes, then super. If it fails, then I don't mind. For me, the reward of editing is being allowed to edit, and getting access to the conversations that shape the game's direction. If I was in this to get commendations, then I'd wander around being nice to everyone and heaping praise in every direction whether it was warranted or not. If I wanted to be popular, I wouldn't raise big steaming arguments with folk when I want to push the game in different directions. The result of activity is that you acquire supporters and detractors. I'd rather be divisive and an agent of change, then beloved and ineffectual.

So by all means, please vote for or against the proposal as your conscience and ideology demands. I mean honestly, if I was a delegate, I'd have serious doubts about a vote about attaching a badge of honour to someone who already has been given a lot of power, as it encourages an environment where you feel like to vote against you have to set yourself against power. There's good reasons why people aren't commended for their staff work, and while the initial principle applied to moderators, there's every reason for it to apply to anybody who has control and authority over the game in any capacity.

As a socialist, liberal and communalist, I don't believe in cults of personality, I believe in minimising power distance, and I believe in challenging the status quo and challenging authority, even when I am in that position of authority. To contribute work to a creation of the commons is all I want, and the reward for the work is that the work is done, and that is a good feeling.

I won't decline the commendation if it is offered, as it is very much up to the community to offer these things, and because I appreciate the personal gesture from my good buddy Helaw. But honestly my own ideology is completely understanding of the position taken by those who are opposing it. Aclion, Karkra, Queer AmComville: decide based on your own views and thoughts, and know that I entirely understand where you are coming from.

So if anyone is wondering what my self vote against means, it's partly a joke, yes, because that's what I mostly do on NS - I add jokes to the game. But it's also a sincere expression of sympathy with the position that opposes the commendation, even while at the same time I'm truly grateful for the friendship shown by those who are supporting.

If nothing else, one of my greatest joys in this game is to do things that haven't done before. Hopefully I'm among the first to applaud folk who vote against his commendation!