SC Rules discussion

[Tinhampton]

Further to this post, should I assume that "catcher" and "restorer" are legal terms, much like "sinker" (which encompasses the three restorers and single catcher) is?

[Crazy girl]

Yup

[Yaak]

I have two declarations - one legal and one more of a tit-for-tat war - up for review. Now it's just the waiting game?

[Crazy girl]

Not sure what your question is?

If you're waiting for a mod to sign off on your proposals, we don't do that. See: viewtopic.php?p=38113783#p38113783

[Yaak]

Not sure what your question is?

If you're waiting for a mod to sign off on your proposals, we don't do that. See: viewtopic.php?p=38113783#p38113783

I'm waiting for a drafting request. I put the tag [DR] in my title. It probably wasn't updated, because I can confirm of Sedge's previous posts that it exists.

[Sedgistan]

What is a "drafting request"? What are you actually asking Moderators to do?

Mods don't sign off proposals prior to submission.

[Yaak]

What is a "drafting request"? What are you actually asking Moderators to do?

Mods don't sign off proposals prior to submission.

Basically a legality check.

[Sedgistan]

You haven't read what CG linked to:

Legality Checks

If you require a legality check for an aspect of your proposal, make that request in your drafting thread. If it's not answered within a few days, then post in Moderation linking to the thread and asking for a check. We do not generally carry out full proposal legality checks - it is the author's responsibility to write a legal proposal. Moderators will simply clear up cases when there is an uncertainty with the application of an aspect of the rules.

If your check is urgent or requires confidentiality, we may occasionally entertain legality requests via Getting Help Request; this is entirely at our discretion, and whatever ruling is made will likely be made public in due course.

I have put some of it in large text to emphasise the point we are trying to get across to you.

[Yaak]

You haven't read what CG linked to:

Legality Checks

If you require a legality check for an aspect of your proposal, make that request in your drafting thread. If it's not answered within a few days, then post in Moderation linking to the thread and asking for a check. We do not generally carry out full proposal legality checks - it is the author's responsibility to write a legal proposal. Moderators will simply clear up cases when there is an uncertainty with the application of an aspect of the rules.

If your check is urgent or requires confidentiality, we may occasionally entertain legality requests via Getting Help Request; this is entirely at our discretion, and whatever ruling is made will likely be made public in due course.

I have put some of it in large text to emphasise the point we are trying to get across to you.

Thanks.

[Sedgistan]

With the technical implementation of co-authors, Rule 4b needs rewriting - currently it's:

Branding: Listing co-authors of a proposal is permitted; note these must be nations, and each listed co-author has the right to request a proposal be removed from the submission queue. Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.

There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

[Insidium]

... allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

That's a really cool idea, and it reminds me of the PBS underwriting/acknowledgement segments at the beginning of (Edit: and/or the end of) programs, with the now-famous "Viewers Like You" at the end.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

With the technical implementation of co-authors, Rule 4b needs rewriting - currently it's:

Branding: Listing co-authors of a proposal is permitted; note these must be nations, and each listed co-author has the right to request a proposal be removed from the submission queue. Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.

There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

I think listing sponsors etc. in a proposal is a bad idea - could end up with lists that are longer than the proposal itself. Keep it limited to co-authors as current is my thought.

[Emodea]

There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

Don't really see any need for it? I think keeping it limited to co-authors is just fine.

[Insidium]

There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

I think listing sponsors etc. in a proposal is a bad idea - could end up with lists that are longer than the proposal itself. Keep it limited to co-authors as current is my thought.

Perhaps not lists of supporters, but I think an author should be allowed to add a small note of acknowledgement, like, "Thanks to Bhang Bhang Duc for their invaluable help in drafting this proposal."

[Emodea]

Perhaps not lists of supporters, but I think an author should be allowed to add a small note of acknowledgement, like, "Thanks to Bhang Bhang Duc for their invaluable help in drafting this proposal."

If they did indeed contribute so greatly to the proposal that it needs to be mentioned, then why not list them as a co-author? It is how this entire thing has worked in the past and there seems to be nothing wrong with keeping as it is.

[Insidium]

Perhaps not lists of supporters, but I think an author should be allowed to add a small note of acknowledgement, like, "Thanks to Bhang Bhang Duc for their invaluable help in drafting this proposal."

If they did indeed contribute so greatly to the proposal that it needs to be mentioned, then why not list them as a co-author? It is how this entire thing has worked in the past and there seems to be nothing wrong with keeping as it is.

It might not be accurate to say that someone who so kindly provided an author with valuable feedback on a regional forum was a co-author, but that doesn't mean their contribution is undeserving of an acknowledgement.

[Emodea]

It might not be accurate to say that someone who so kindly provided an author with valuable feedback on a regional forum was a co-author, but that doesn't mean their contribution is undeserving of an acknowledgement.

If you wish to give them acknowledgement, you could do so in the OP of your drafting thread;

Thanks to Dilber, Ananke II, Crazy girl, Goobergunchia, Nasicournius, Orioni 2, Bhang Bhang Duc, ROM, HumanSanity, Honeydewistania, Quebecshire, Refuge Isle, The Python and Minskiev for the help while drafting this!

[Insidium]

It might not be accurate to say that someone who so kindly provided an author with valuable feedback on a regional forum was a co-author, but that doesn't mean their contribution is undeserving of an acknowledgement.

If you wish to give them acknowledgement, you could do so in the OP of your drafting thread

That's not a bad idea!

[Lenlyvit]

With the technical implementation of co-authors, Rule 4b needs rewriting - currently it's:

Branding: Listing co-authors of a proposal is permitted; note these must be nations, and each listed co-author has the right to request a proposal be removed from the submission queue. Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.

There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

I feel like this rule should stay in place. Supporters of a proposal have no place within the text of a resolution and should go in the OP. In my opinion, having a list of supporters could create a kind of influence on a proposals passage if included in the text. Especially if disliked players or extremely well known players are listed. It could take away from the merits of the proposal itself.

[Refuge Isle]

With the technical implementation of co-authors, Rule 4b needs rewriting - currently it's:


There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

I feel like this rule should stay in place. Supporters of a proposal have no place within the text of a resolution and should go in the OP. In my opinion, having a list of supporters could create a kind of influence on a proposals passage if included in the text. Especially if disliked players or extremely well known players are listed. It could take away from the merits of the proposal itself.

Agree with the above for similar reasons.

I feel that it's been largely accepted that the "supporters" of a resolution, the likes of which you may be thinking, are expressed through the approval process, which functions as a lower house to the WA. Picking up large or unexpected names do not go unnoticed and do carry weight. Most importantly, they do this in a mechanically impactful way that does not diminish a resolution or its content by spamming it with names or nation tags of players who did not contribute to its substance at all.

The rule should remain in place.

[Thousand Branches]

This line should be changed in the SC rules post to reflect the new names for GCRs:

"Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - legal."

[Lenlyvit]

This line should be changed in the SC rules post to reflect the new names for GCRs:

"Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - legal."

The names "Feeder" and "Sinker" are still in use, however you're right that the new terms "Restorer" and "Catcher" should be added in as legal terms to be used in proposals.

[Warzone Codger]

With the technical implementation of co-authors, Rule 4b needs rewriting - currently it's:

Branding: Listing co-authors of a proposal is permitted; note these must be nations, and each listed co-author has the right to request a proposal be removed from the submission queue. Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.

There is a question as to whether the rule should be removed in its entirety, allowing authors to list "sponsors" or "supporters" in a proposal.

Are nations such as the 'TRR WA Committee' allowed to be listed as co authors? I thought they are barred from the current interpretation of this rule, which unfortunately might be one of the reasons such regional programs never got off the ground.

I think the rule should be adjusted to allow such programs and regional promotion - if a region is focused on the WA they should be entitled to boast about it.

[Thousand Branches]

This line should be changed in the SC rules post to reflect the new names for GCRs:

"Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - legal."

The names "Feeder" and "Sinker" are still in use, however you're right that the new terms "Restorer" and "Catcher" should be added in as legal terms to be used in proposals.

Oh yes that’s what I meant, apologies if that was unclear. I just meant the new terms should be grouped there as well since they’re now official

[Sedgistan]

This line should be changed in the SC rules post to reflect the new names for GCRs:

"Feeder (as in 'feeder region') or Sinker - legal."

Done.

Are nations such as the 'TRR WA Committee' allowed to be listed as co authors? I thought they are barred from the current interpretation of this rule, which unfortunately might be one of the reasons such regional programs never got off the ground.

I think the rule should be adjusted to allow such programs and regional promotion - if a region is focused on the WA they should be entitled to boast about it.

They're allowed. I don't recall us banning them previously, though I may be wrong. It sounds like the kind of thing the GA would have prohibited.

Suggested change to 4b:

Co-authors should use the in-built mechanics for recording co-authors, rather than listing them in the text of proposals. [Note: since this feature was added in November 2021, resolutions prior to this have co-authors listed in the resolution text, which was legal at the time.] Lists of supporters or similar are not permitted.

This introduces a new restriction - adding additional co-authors via the text. The coded co-author system has notifications for co-authors (they they've been listed as one, and when someone tries to repeal a passed resolution they co-authored), badges, and allows the co-author to withdraw a proposal without having to go via the Moderation team. Since that system is far superior, it makes sense to force people to use it.