[PASSED] Commend Candlewhisper Archive

[Frisbeeteria]

This venerable World Assembly,

Noting that every nation of the world faces an overwhelming variety of different political issues on a daily basis,

Believing that Candlewhisper Archive has shown exemplary dedication to presenting these issues to governments in an eloquent and accessible way,

Impressed by the clarity with which Candlewhisper Archive has conveyed the following selection of issues regarding a diverse range of important and multifaceted political circumstances to thousands of nations across the world:
• The decay of cultural awareness (known as 'The Show Must Go On')
• The recognition of depression and other mental illnesses (known as 'Rock 'n' Roll Suicide')
• The healthcare applications of a DNA database (known as 'The Genetics Of Aesthetics'),

Bamboozled and befuddled by the incredibly short time period in which all of this has been achieved, and fully expecting Candlewhisper Archive to continue its good work long into the future,

Observing that the nominee has been a consistent source of wit and wisdom within a multitude of international discussions regarding a wide variety of topics in the past,

Certain that the world would be a particularly less engaging place to live were it not for the aforementioned contributions of the nominee,

Hereby commends Candlewhisper Archive.

[The Stalker]

Full support, looks pretty good. Could probably expand upon the 13 issues they've authored a little more to make it longer if you wanted.

[States of Glory]

I'm not well-versed in Issues, but I'd trust an Issues Editor to know who was amongst the "top tier", as it were, of Issues writers, so for now, I support this Commendation.

[Ransium]

From a quanity perspective, CWA's 13 issues put them behind only Sanctaria (18, who got all of their issues but one from the international incident chain), NoQ (26, already commended), and Maxtopia (34, who's err... Max). In addition CWA has many, many more drafts awaiting editing.

[Bhang Bhang Duc]

I'm not well-versed in Issues, but I'd trust an Issues Editor to know who was amongst the "top tier", as it were, of Issues writers, so for now, I support this Commendation.

Of course there was that time recently when he decided to sticky beak into TWP's internal politics, which I don't think Badger has forgotten.

[Pencil Sharpeners 2]

Not sure if it's allowed, cause I know there's a lot of fiddly laws regarding resolutions, but I think CWA's activity on the Unusual Issue Effects thread, and their tireless effort to improve the current issues is something worth mentioning.

[Drasnia]

Not sure if it's allowed, cause I know there's a lot of fiddly laws regarding resolutions, but I think CWA's activity on the Unusual Issue Effects thread, and their tireless effort to improve the current issues is something worth mentioning.

Can't. That'd be commending them for their work as site staff, which violates Rule 1.

And Rule 1 pretty much leads to my problems with this draft. CWA has done great work as a member of site staff and wrote some good issues before becoming an editor, but I don't think in this case it's quite worthy of a commend. NoQ wrote more during a period of low activity. Not only that, but he also has served as various positions in Capitalist Paradise's government. NoQ's commend doesn't mention that (a glaring flaw, IMO) but IMO he had proven himself over the course of many many years and was highly deserving of the commend.

Honestly, this draft is kind of lacking because there's so little stuff that can be used legally. It's far shorter than NoQ's commend and the clauses in this go into a lot less depth as well. Can you give more detail about a lot of these claims?

[Ransium]

Out of corusity what is and isn't rule 1 violation for editors? Am I right that mentioning commenting on others drafts while editor is? But mentioning issues drafted by an editor while being editor aren't?

[Todd McCloud]

Out of corusity what is and isn't rule 1 violation for editors? Am I right that mentioning commenting on others drafts while editor is? But mentioning issues drafted by an editor while being editor aren't?

This ruling was expanded here. I'd like to point out this post here which basically says you can commend folks for issue editing (provided it's presented in an in-character, copacetic argument) but they can't be commended their actions when acting as a site staff. I read this as such: if a mod were to be commended, for instance, they couldn't be commended for doing modly things (locking topics, booting DOS'ers etc), but they can be commended for something along the lines of 'overseeing a multitude of nations to ensure safety and appropriate interactions between nations'. At least that's how I read it. Ard has a cool way of putting issues in a commendation (see the "dollar" version).

[Ransium]

Out of corusity what is and isn't rule 1 violation for editors? Am I right that mentioning commenting on others drafts while editor is? But mentioning issues drafted by an editor while being editor aren't?

This ruling was expanded here. I'd like to point out this post here which basically says you can commend folks for issue editing (provided it's presented in an in-character, copacetic argument) but they can't be commended their actions when acting as a site staff. I read this as such: if a mod were to be commended, for instance, they couldn't be commended for doing modly things (locking topics, booting DOS'ers etc), but they can be commended for something along the lines of 'overseeing a multitude of nations to ensure safety and appropriate interactions between nations'. At least that's how I read it. Ard has a cool way of putting issues in a commendation (see the "dollar" version).

Thanks for taking the time to give such a well sourced and in-depth answer!

[Helaw]

Out of corusity what is and isn't rule 1 violation for editors? Am I right that mentioning commenting on others drafts while editor is? But mentioning issues drafted by an editor while being editor aren't?

This ruling was expanded here. I'd like to point out this post here which basically says you can commend folks for issue editing (provided it's presented in an in-character, copacetic argument) but they can't be commended their actions when acting as a site staff. I read this as such: if a mod were to be commended, for instance, they couldn't be commended for doing modly things (locking topics, booting DOS'ers etc), but they can be commended for something along the lines of 'overseeing a multitude of nations to ensure safety and appropriate interactions between nations'. At least that's how I read it. Ard has a cool way of putting issues in a commendation (see the "dollar" version).

I've added this line:

Further impressed that, on numerous occasions, Candlewhisper Archive has sought to refine the writings of other nations regarding these political issues in order to make them more coherent and interesting,

Which does cover his contributions as an editor, but can also be interpreted as his helpful activity on GI and his commitment to improving existing issues.

[Sedgistan]

The post of mine that Todd links to is quite an old one and probably needs clarifying. Issues Editing (as an Issues Editor) is something you cannot cite in a resolution at all, due to Rule 1. Editing done by a regular player (e.g. as feedback in Got Issues) can be cited.

Generally issues authoring is something that you can commend for. However, recent policy changes in the editing team that give staff members more freedom to add their own issues means that issues authoring by Issues Editors is almost a staff function now.

Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.

[Tinhampton]

*le snip*

Are we now at the definite point where we can say "Commending Issues Editors for writing issues is illegal", or is it tapdancing on the line?

[Drasnia]

*le snip*

Are we now at the definite point where we can say "Commending Issues Editors for writing issues is illegal", or is it tapdancing on the line?

It sounds more like you can commend an editor for issues they wrote before joining the team but the way things are done backstage, most issues they've written since would be illegal, or something like that.

Is a pity tbqh. Maybe it's my bias towards GI, but I think several current editors are commendable - if there were no such thing as R1.

[Helaw]

The post of mine that Todd links to is quite an old one and probably needs clarifying. Issues Editing (as an Issues Editor) is something you cannot cite in a resolution at all, due to Rule 1. Editing done by a regular player (e.g. as feedback in Got Issues) can be cited.

Generally issues authoring is something that you can commend for. However, recent policy changes in the editing team that give staff members more freedom to add their own issues means that issues authoring by Issues Editors is almost a staff function now.

Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.

2 of the 13 issues that CWA has authored have been edited by him, leaving 11 that he has authored outwith self-edits. Because of this, I believe that his non-editing contributions are still very much noteworthy, and his constant help in the GI forum is not something that is explicitly demanded of him as an Editor.

If a large portion of an Editor's authored issues are self-edits, I believe that is a valid situation for a commendation to be illegal if it cites them. However, I also believe that if an Editor's issues are largely non-self-edited and their contributions reach further than editing / authoring to a fair extent, then it should be perfectly reasonable to commend them. Because of the nature of self-edits and how they still require the input and approval of the team (to a larger extent than normal edits, naturally), it may be reasonable to set a hard cap of [x]% of an Editor's issues being self-edited before that can no longer be used as an argument in favour of commending them; leaving only GI contributions and any other things. Perhaps I'm just waffling.

[Todd McCloud]

The post of mine that Todd links to is quite an old one and probably needs clarifying. Issues Editing (as an Issues Editor) is something you cannot cite in a resolution at all, due to Rule 1. Editing done by a regular player (e.g. as feedback in Got Issues) can be cited.

Generally issues authoring is something that you can commend for. However, recent policy changes in the editing team that give staff members more freedom to add their own issues means that issues authoring by Issues Editors is almost a staff function now.

Essentially, I think we've got to the point where it is not going to be legally possible to Commend (or Condemn) an Issues Editor for anything related to issues. That's a pity, as CWA's contributions to NationStates are definitely commendable... but I don't think you're going to be able to do that via the SC.

Anlright, yeah that is a shame. Thanks for that correction. So essentially one cannot be commended / condemned for any actions / duties that are not accessible to the common, every-day player?

[States of Glory]

I'm not well-versed in Issues, but I'd trust an Issues Editor to know who was amongst the "top tier", as it were, of Issues writers, so for now, I support this Commendation.

Of course there was that time recently when he decided to sticky beak into TWP's internal politics, which I don't think Badger has forgotten.

I admittedly didn't want to be the one who brought up the elephant in the room, but as you said, BBB is probably going to be extremely hesitant to support this proposal.

The point's rather moot anyway as there are unfortunately a few legality issues (no pun intended) with the proposal. That is a shame as let's face it, issues have a wider reach in terms of playerbase than GP and the GA.

[Aclion]

Well deserved, but what's listed is not enough to justify a commendation IMO.
Have you talked to some of their region mates to see what they've done in terms of regional politics?

[Drasnia]

Well deserved, but what's listed is not enough to justify a commendation IMO.
Have you talked to some of their region mates to see what they've done in terms of regional politics?

CWA drifts around from region to region. He's never really done anything with regional politics (that I know of) except to piss off TWP once.

[The Rouge Christmas State]

I think they're worthy of commendation, so you have my support.

[Helaw]

Is this proposal worth submitting, seeing as there is some uncertainty over whether or not staff members should be at all commended?

[Aclion]

Is this proposal worth submitting, seeing as there is some uncertainty over whether or not staff members should be at all commended?

There no question that staff members are eligible for commendation, and I think most of us agree that he deserves one. the question is what has CwA done, outside of his editing, that is worthy of commendation?

[Helaw]

Is this proposal worth submitting, seeing as there is some uncertainty over whether or not staff members should be at all commended?

There no question that staff members are eligible for commendation, and I think most of us agree that he deserves one. the question is what has CwA done, outside of his editing, that is worthy of commendation?

This is answered in the proposal. Editing is a staff action, and thus could not be explicitly used as an argument in favour of a commendation. Instead, his contributions as an author and helpful presence on GI (Something that is not demanded of Editors as part of the position) are the things being recognised.

[Abhichandra]

Not sure if this was implied, but you may also want to add that CWA consistently helps nations with their issues in the Got Issues? forum.

[The Atlae Isles]

Not sure if this was implied, but you may also want to add that CWA consistently helps nations with their issues in the Got Issues? forum.

I believe that is the whole point of the resolution.