[PASSED] Commend Fudgetopia

[Sedgistan]

The following proposal has been in the works on TSP's offsite for a while...

Commend Fudgetopia

A resolution to recognize outstanding contribution by a nation or region.

Category: Commendation | Nominee: Fudgetopia | Proposed by: Daynor

The Security Council,

Acknowledging Fudgetopia as the longest serving delegate of The South Pacific, whose reign began on July 5, 2006 and ended on January 1, 2010, totaling 1276 days or three and one-half years,

Remembering throughout NationStates history the Pacific regions have been unstable and difficult to maintain,

Recognizing that Fudgetopia, in compliance with the laws of The South Pacific, allowed challenges to the delegate's position and criticisms of the delegate's leadership at any time,

Amazed that Fudgetopia maintained control of a Pacific for three and a half years, without restricting freedom,

Impressed at this unmatched accomplishment, and also that as a result, Fudgetopia has long been the most influential nation in the world,

Noting that Fudgetopia was founded on September 4, 2003 in The South Pacific,

Realizing since that date, Fudgetopia has been one of the most important figures in The South Pacific and was a founding member of The South Pacific's military, served in various cabinet positions throughout the years, and became a forum administrator of The South Pacific Forum,

Understanding that Fudgetopia has been a positive force of leadership within The South Pacific for over seven years,

Believing that any nation having had such success as the fair and diligent leader of a Pacific is deserving of recognition,

Hereby commends Fudgetopia.

Fudge's efforts in TSP remain one of the most impressive actions I've seen in NS. I am a little surprised this has never been at vote before.

Also, this text was extremely hard to write thanks to Rule IV (thanks Ard).

Comments welcome!

[Southern Bellz]

Hello guys, on top of all of this Fudge is one of the nicest members I have ever interacted with in NationStates. Despite me coming into The South Pacific as a security threat, she is one of the first members that welcomed me with open arms. Whenever I have to make tough decisions, she is the first person to send me words of encouragement. When other people were not ready to move on, Fudge insured that the largest GAME-BASED democracy got a new face as soon as someone from the inside was willing.

Without her, The South Pacific that you see today would not exists, and I feel like that alone is worthy for her to be commended. When other feeders banned their recruiters, we encourage ours to take part in the community. While other feeders ban news because it is propaganda, TSP welcomes the debate. And while you may feel this is a TSP only issue, I disagree.

For too long have I heard power-hungry imperialist say that the feeder communities owe the game something. While I disagree with that, The South Pacific does its part to be responsible in its role as a feeder. Without Fudge, the region would be a cookie cutter region or chaos. And that is worthy of a greater NS commendation.

Thanks for your time.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

Also, this text was extremely hard to write thanks to Rule IV (thanks Ard).

Yeah, but I'm sure continued sniping over the rule isn't going to help much either.

[Daynor]

Thanks for the comment SB!

Also, this text was extremely hard to write thanks to Rule IV (thanks Ard).

Yeah, but I'm sure continued sniping over the rule isn't going to help much either.

Odd advice from you of all people. At any rate, I will continue to voice my opposition and point out incredibly stupid Ard's rule is from now until the day I die in the majority of my SC posts.

You will notice however, I don't just randomly pop into threads and say 'Rule IV sucks!' It is included within a post I was already going to make, and thus the post has value to the discussion at hand... Please return the favor.

[Southern Bellz]

Instead of any comments on rule 4, it would be nice for any feedback.

Thanks!

[Sedgistan]

You will notice however, I don't just randomly pop into threads and say 'Rule IV sucks!' It is included within a post I was already going to make, and thus the post has value to the discussion at hand... Please return the favor.

Except that if you're going to make comments like that, it's not surprising that others will respond to them.

How about we do as Southern Bellz has suggested, and stick to discussing the proposal?

[Daynor]

Submission Saturday unless interest in drafting threads in the SC suddenly comes back by then...

Anyone unaware of Rule IV is going to be suspicious why this resolution sounds goofy in a couple places... Using silly terms when much easier ones could be used. To almost all of us, if we didn't know of Rule IV it sounds like equivocation, and that I'm trying to hide something. I honestly don't see how Rule IV could not be mentioned in the OP for that reason alone.

[Sedgistan]

As per this ruling, regions cannot author or co-author proposals.

[Todd McCloud]

I've read this over before, it looks good. Also it would be best to probably remove the written by TSP stipulation, stated above.

[The Cat-Tribe]

As per this ruling, regions cannot author or co-author proposals.

I'm not sure the logic of Ard's objection in that ruling applies here, but (obviously) you can rule on your own that regions cannot author or co-author proposals, so not much point in arguing.

I believe the intent of listing The South Pacific as a co-author was that this was drafted (if I have my facts right) by more than one nation of TSP and is generally supported by our region as a whole.

Regardless, Fudgetopia is among the finest nations I've known during my many years in NationStates, is a great asset to The South Pacific in particular, and is generally cool and super-nice. Fudgie is most deserving of Commendation.

[Sedgistan]

I believe the intent of listing The South Pacific as a co-author was that this was drafted (if I have my facts right) by more than one nation of TSP and is generally supported by our region as a whole.

I had a look at the drafting thread there - Todd McCloud & Southern Bellz were the two who contributed to the drafting, and there wouldn't be a problem with Topid/Daynor listing them both as co-authors. As for the region as a whole supporting the proposal, that can be demonstrated by voting for it

[Unibot II]

I believe the intent of listing The South Pacific as a co-author was that this was drafted (if I have my facts right) by more than one nation of TSP and is generally supported by our region as a whole.

I had a look at the drafting thread there - Todd McCloud & Southern Bellz were the two who contributed to the drafting, and there wouldn't be a problem with Topid/Daynor listing them both as co-authors. As for the region as a whole supporting the proposal, that can be demonstrated by voting for it

I dunno, Sedge, I have considered 'resolution projects' for Dharma before -- an activity for our region, where we all get together to write a resolution. But I wouldn't do it if our region wouldn't get recognized for its work. I mean someone may feel unrepresented. Although now that I think about it, I have a circumvention, which is pretty slick. However, I don't think the idea is applicable for TSP.

[Lights in Anarchy]

While I won't argue with Sedge, I feel it is regrettable that the communal expression must be stricken.
I thought it was a nice sentiment, even if only a handful were actively involved.
It is also good propaganda.

My WA will support, seems like a nice guy.

[Daynor]

The reason our region wasn't allowed to cite itself as an author was that we were the Security Council, and it looked like there was already a decision by the SC on the issue and might effect voting unfairly.

What harm is adding TSP going to cause.

Secondly, no, I absolutely could not have written this without each and every active member of TSP. I used post after post after post in their archives to find out information, I knew exactly one point in this resolution without them.

[Sedgistan]

I think you missed some of that ruling:

An authorship credit is for doing almost as much work on the proposal as the author -- a complete re-write, for example. It's not for collective critiquing, whether done by a forum or by region members.

All the members of region (particularly one the size of TSP) cannot possibly have "done almost as much work on the proposal as the author". You may have got information from posts made by other members of the region, but that doesn't mean they actually co-authored the proposal.

[Unibot II]

I think you missed some of that ruling:

An authorship credit is for doing almost as much work on the proposal as the author -- a complete re-write, for example. It's not for collective critiquing, whether done by a forum or by region members.

All the members of region (particularly one the size of TSP) cannot possibly have "done almost as much work on the proposal as the author". You may have got information from posts made by other members of the region, but that doesn't mean they actually co-authored the proposal.

I'm not talking about collective critiquing, but mass input into the creation of a resolution, it wouldn't be possible with a region the size of The South Pacific, but if say ten members of Dharma conducted it, it would look much better if we cut our names down from 10 to 1, by referring to the region that ran the activity.

[Sedgistan]

That really sounds like collective critiquing - I think it's highly unlikely (to the point where I don't think it'd ever happen) that 10 people could contribute to a proposal significantly enough to warrant being listed as co-authors. This isn't a ruling, but I'd be extremely sceptical were any proposal to name more than three.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

That really sounds like collective critiquing - I think it's highly unlikely (to the point where I don't think it'd ever happen) that 10 people could contribute to a proposal significantly enough to warrant being listed as co-authors. This isn't a ruling, but I'd be extremely sceptical were any proposal to name more than three.

Well I suppose it could be done in portions too, Sedge, I mean perhaps we all come up with the idea, we outline the resolution into three portions to be written by three people, and then severally reworked by three other people, only to ultimately reworked by one other person who would be the final editor and make sure the three portions flow well. Then the process of submission, campaigning, lobbying and debating could be done by separate people. *shrugs* I'd be a shame to do the activity and then not got credit for it -- but I've got an obvious workaround for any ruling you can throw our way anyway.

EDIT: looking at it in retrospect, I'd break the six original authors into three researchers, and three authors.

[Sedgistan]

You can't credit campaigners, lobbyists, researchers, or debaters. If they've made a significant contribution to the actual proposal, credit them as co-authors.

[Crazy girl]

Maybe the rules lawyering should be in a seperate thread, so this one can be used to discuss Fudgie's commendation?

[Southern Bellz]

I really don't want this thread to be a hub for other tangent issues with the WASC, but while it is being discussed here, it might as well be addressed. The reason why I feel TSP should be credited is because this was a result of a sit down with the region asking what sort of tasks should both the government and citizens of the region worked on. This was brought up, and as a result was created. Topid was clearly the driving force, but every person who worked on this did it on behalf of a region.

If this effort is not considered a regional effort, I really do not know what can be considered such. Obviously it is impossible for a feeder to have EVERY person work on a resolution. I think its clear by the responses that maybe that moderator ruling should be re-looked at.


Anyways, still looking for actual feedback.

Thanks for the input, kinda.

[Sedgistan]

If this effort is not considered a regional effort, I really do not know what can be considered such.

No region can be credited as co-authoring a proposal - it's not a case of me saying that TSP hasn't made enough effort.

I think its clear by the responses that maybe that moderator ruling should be re-looked at.

If you want to appeal the ruling, make that clear, and I'll ask another mod to take a look at it.

[Southern Bellz]

I think it deserves to be looked at again and thanks for actually taking the time to have a real discussion about it. You are a good mod sedge.

[Daynor]

I think it deserves to be looked at again

Ditto. Not that I am confident that player input counts for anything around here anymore.

Submission will not occur Saturday.

[Ardchoille]

If this effort is not considered a regional effort, I really do not know what can be considered such.

No region can be credited as co-authoring a proposal - it's not a case of me saying that TSP hasn't made enough effort.

I think its clear by the responses that maybe that moderator ruling should be re-looked at.

If you want to appeal the ruling, make that clear, and I'll ask another mod to take a look at it.

A few points:

• We don' t credit threads that have been drafted on the SC forum as "authored by the SC", even if 10 of the posters in the thread made (relatively) significant contributions. Drafting on a regional forum is the same activity and should have the same treatment.

• Here the contributions are publicly visible. That's not always the case on regional forums, so we have to take the author's word for it about the significance. A glory-hound founder or delegate could insist that all proposals from region members credit the region, regardless of where the drafting was done and who did it.

• The "proposal author" badge has to go somewhere, and the "somewhere" is on the nation that submitted it. A region can't submit a proposal.

• Inevitably, some contributions will be less significant than others. The attribution "authored by (region)" gives all contributions equal weight.

• If the region or other group feels a member or members has made a particularly noteworthy effort in that area, let them use their in-house award system, if they have one, or put the member up for an official Commendation.

• If someone wants to commend a region for authoring proposals then let it get a few under its belt to provide a reason for a Commendation, the sort of badge that regions can get.

For advertising purposes, there is nothing stopping a region from writing "Home of six proposal authors" or "Members of this region have written 15 successful WA resolutions" on the WFE, or writing an NSWiki page about the region-sponsored proposals and the politics behind them, with a link in members' sigs.

As to crediting authorship to people because they helped in the TGing or editing, doing that is just part of being an active region member. Presumably you joined, or stay joined, because you feel some commitment to or fondness for the region. Same with being a member of a specialist, non-regional offsite, like the recently revived National Sovereignty Organisation. You do what you can, when you can, because you get something out of being a member and want to give something back.