WA SC Fellowship ?

[Unibot III]

This recent incident with Alterante — which frankly I’ve found kind of appalling in terms of how new authors were treated — got me thinking.

I was wondering what players thought of an annual WASC Fellowship program where every year we’d do a mass tg blast inviting WA nations to the program, players would then sign up and receive a handful of webinars on the basics of writing WA SC resolutions (Development - Research - Structure - Quorum - Politics) and each fellow would be assigned a mentor who assists them in the development of a WA resolution which they may or may not intend to submit eventually?

[0cala]

I like this idea.

[The Seven levels of Heaven]

This recent incident with Alterante — which frankly I’ve found kind of appalling in terms of how new authors were treated — got me thinking.

I was wondering what players thought of an annual WASC Fellowship program where every year we’d do a mass tg blast inviting WA nations to the program, players would then sign up and receive a handful of webinars on the basics of writing WA SC resolutions (Development - Research - Structure - Quorum - Politics) and each fellow would be assigned a mentor who assists them in the development of a WA resolution which they may or may not intend to submit eventually?

While I support the idea, I think on the basis on what it's forming on is a bit unfair. No offense to 0cala, but you're talking their responses to the earliest criticisms before the badge hunt cries were telling folks not to comment, attempting to discredit someone's opinion because they don't know how puppets work, and overall were coming off as initially dismissive without proof to back their claims (which others thankfully provided later)...which continued throughout the thread.

But in reality, you get what you give. Their posts more than likely came off as dismissive and rude if folks didn't agree with the author, and that's how folks opposing were going to respond back. Yes, they're a new author, and some of the responses and attempted badgering back were wholey unnecessary, and I'm disappointed in the folks that made it essentially their goal to zero in and dig so hard at someone who was clearly new to how the SC works.

That being all said though, as I said I 100% support this. If anything, it can help teach new authors how the SC works on a friendlier scale, but essentially help against incidents such as the Alterante thread from happening again. Or at the very least, better prepare them since this is the SC, and drama kinda goes hand in hand with it.

[Second Sovereignty]

[snip]

Is it really necessary to drag up the self-justification here? Come on.

In any case. This is quite a good idea, though I question if anyone would really be committed to it. We tried something similar in the GA, briefly, and, well. You can look over there and see how well it's been maintained.

[Honeydewistania]

I think effort is better concentrated at providing individual feedback to authors than preparing programs and webinars and whatnot. This seems way too grandiose to have any meaningful impact.

[Unibot III]

I think effort is better concentrated at providing individual feedback to authors than preparing programs and webinars and whatnot. This seems way too grandiose to have any meaningful impact.

It’s not really that hard to put together? Some promotion once a year, then some training sessions with lecture material that is reused. Then fellows do most of the hard work in drafting their first resolutions. I think it’d really help set up new authors and give them the tools quickly to succeed.

I think the fellowship would need five authors (who’d be presenters and mentors.)

I think the WASC is better suited for this because it can draw upon the experience of GPers running similar programs — you have to continuously do training sessions in GP and you’re always recruiting new talent — I think we could take the same lessons that GPers have learned in terms of orientation and apply it to WA.

My experience in the WA is that first drafts as a newbie often can be disastrous because you don’t have a strong enough grasp on WA practices and good professional writing to take the feedback and turn it into something constructive. Presentations on the fundamentals plus private mentorship seems to be the right combination. Ultimately the goal would be to help develop the next generation of SC authors and nurture a culture of respectful authorship here.

[Refuge Isle]

If you want new authors to be treated better, consider treating them better and providing feedback that is both helpful and not caustic.

Creating another self-serving event that glorifies the Old Masters and outlines the behaviour they expect from newer players (and gives an excuse to bitch when said new players don't follow the standards set out by webinar 1B) is not helpful to anyone but the old guard's egos.

[Unibot III]

If you want new authors to be treated better, consider treating them better and providing feedback that is both helpful and not caustic.

Creating another self-serving event that glorifies the Old Masters and outlines the behaviour they expect from newer players (and gives an excuse to bitch when said new players don't follow the standards set out by webinar 1B) is not helpful to anyone but the old guard's egos.

Just to clarify, I hate caustic/unconstructive feedback. I wouldn’t see the program as glorifying someone, it’s about creating an environment that is easier to learn in than a conventional drafting thread. I don’t want to preserve an “old guard,” I want to see skills development and mentorship for the new generation of authors in the WA Security Council.

When I was a youngling, I really struggled with my first few WA drafts and the drafting threads were torturous — I was constantly rewriting but not able to really grasp or anticipate the issues with each new draft.

It took a veteran player, Sydia, to pull me aside and provide some mentorship — after my first resolution, drafting became a lot easier and I gained a lot of confidence in the work I was submitting — but it was touch-and-go for a while there, and frankly I always resented the lack of patience that certain “old guard” members had had for me when I was starting out. I would hope the fellowship would be a forward-looking program, not something that is stuck in the past.

[Luxize]

I'd personally love this idea, curious as to how it'd work though.

[Refuge Isle]

Your original premise is "which frankly I’ve found kind of appalling in terms of how new authors were treated — got me thinking."

If someone's treatment is the thing that bothers you, creating a social program that teaches new players how avoid harassment is not something that adequately resolves the source of that behaviour -- just how to cope with it, or dodge posts which shouldn't be written. It would be far better to address the source of caustic and unconstructive feedback to convey better experience to players who will never see or interact with this "webinar". But this entire premise and line of thinking also misses the mark entirely regarding new players versus the SC.

The only useful information that one really needs in a "How Does SC" tutorial is to research a consenting target and make a compelling argument that presents the case. Old resolutions are success stories, and their draft threads often provide construction and context clues. That's it, because everything beyond that is, in the most good-faith scenario, knowing where dead forums or retired players are or, in the most realistic scenario, people in-the-know setting up conspiracies or rubber stamps in advance. A new player will not have access to either and, honestly, those are probably a bigger factor to their success than anything else.

This isn't the GA where a new player can show up with a sound idea and hammer it out. A new player with excessively fellating behaviour, impeccable research, and a terribly convincing draft will still be unlikely to pass their commendation of a stable, non-GP, 100-population region, despite them having five year RP and a 200-page treatise on the practices and philosophy of law which we will say hypothetically passes a """commendability""" check. In this scenario, GP politicians will be confused how voting for the target or its author will profit them and advise their delegates to vote against, likely thinking that doing so avoids the erosion or inflation of their favourite social currency.

So, naturally, there is a short list of popular targets and operating outside of that list is rare. New players that actually end up being SC authors are exclusively GP personalities that work for a major milgp region, with more connections to (or reasons to care about) the shortlist, standing to also gain the most by manifesting it and perpetuating a reliably profitable status quo. The culture of the SC has been set up this way and a self-glorifying "best practices" festival for new players isn't going to change that, because new players are not its cause. But I understand that mantras you say to make yourself feel better are very important for some.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

"The only useful information that one really needs in a "How Does SC" tutorial is to research a consenting target and make a compelling argument that presents the case. "

It's a nice ideal but I'm pretty confident that the reality involves a fair bit more politics than that.

[The Seven levels of Heaven]

"The only useful information that one really needs in a "How Does SC" tutorial is to research a consenting target and make a compelling argument that presents the case. "

It's a nice ideal but I'm pretty confident that the reality involves a fair bit more politics than that.

If anything, it involves being able to handle an assortment of different types of opposition, from the helpful to the nitpicky, and learning how to avoid getting heated or burnt out by it.

Learning how to make a compelling argument is ideal and wonderful and something to strive for, but it's also pointless if your opponent zeroes in and tries to pull things in a more negative/toxic direction for example...which is like a staple for some folks here. So learning to both be able to work around that but also not engage in it yourself is honestly a more worthwhile tool.

[Unibot III]

Your original premise is "which frankly I’ve found kind of appalling in terms of how new authors were treated — got me thinking."

If someone's treatment is the thing that bothers you, creating a social program that teaches new players how avoid harassment is not something that adequately resolves the source of that behaviour -- just how to cope with it, or dodge posts which shouldn't be written. It would be far better to address the source of caustic and unconstructive feedback to convey better experience to players who will never see or interact with this "webinar". But this entire premise and line of thinking also misses the mark entirely regarding new players versus the SC.

The purpose of the program would not be to teach players how to avoid harassment, it’s to do community skills development differently with:

(1) one-on-one mentorship,
(2) a few short assignments that get players thinking about how to research events & require them to closely review some past resolutions,
(3) sessions that are interactive — involving questions from fellows,

This works both ways, it encourages veteran authors to play a constructive role in the development of the next generation of authors, and establishes a safe environment for new players to grapple with the nuances of what they want to do in the WASC - a static guide is by no means useless but it can’t impart what a conversation can when comes to the politics of an issue, the research involved, and what’s “the starting point” etc.

So, naturally, there is a short list of popular targets and operating outside of that list is rare. New players that actually end up being SC authors are exclusively GP personalities that work for a major milgp region, with more connections to (or reasons to care about) the shortlist, standing to also gain the most by manifesting it and perpetuating a reliably profitable status quo. The culture of the SC has been set up this way and a self-glorifying "best practices" festival for new players isn't going to change that, because new players are not its cause. But I understand that mantras you say to make yourself feel better are very important for some.

There’s truth to this statement but it wasn’t always an accurate picture of the WASC and I think it can be reversed with a community-building effort.

[Suvmia]

I hate to post here as a self-plug, but there are some venues in which a program of this nature already exists; namely, the URA and TWP operate a WA training camp.

Of course, something more public would be better, but I don't see the benefit of hosting an annual fellowship when there could be a more updated and in depth how-to guide created, with encouragements to reach out to various successful authors for more specific advice when needed.

[Refuge Isle]

"The only useful information that one really needs in a "How Does SC" tutorial is to research a consenting target and make a compelling argument that presents the case. "

It's a nice ideal but I'm pretty confident that the reality involves a fair bit more politics than that.

Guess it's a good thing the entire second half of my post discusses that.

[Ever-Wandering Souls]

"The only useful information that one really needs in a "How Does SC" tutorial is to research a consenting target and make a compelling argument that presents the case. "

It's a nice ideal but I'm pretty confident that the reality involves a fair bit more politics than that.

Guess it's a good thing the entire second half of my post discusses that.

You went on to discuss the politics of "commandability" but not particularly the other concepts of, for example, "drafting in the right region's offsite forums nets you several thousand automatic votes" or similar concepts of voting blocs or shunned parties vice versa.

[Refuge Isle]

Guess it's a good thing the entire second half of my post discusses that.

You went on to discuss the politics of "commandability" but not particularly the other concepts of, for example, "drafting in the right region's offsite forums nets you several thousand automatic votes" or similar concepts of voting blocs or shunned parties vice versa.

No, I did. I think it's worth it for you to re-read it in its entirety.

The post is not about "commendability". I gave a hypothetical where a commendability check was passed -- meaning the only thing I discussed were the politics involved and why a newcomer specifically will never succeed out of the gate unless coming from a well connected region or social clique, and colouring within very narrow lines.

You're literally going "but what about..." for a thing which was the entire point of my post.

[Unibot III]

I hate to post here as a self-plug, but there are some venues in which a program of this nature already exists; namely, the URA and TWP operate a WA training camp.

Of course, something more public would be better, but I don't see the benefit of hosting an annual fellowship when there could be a more updated and in depth how-to guide created, with encouragements to reach out to various successful authors for more specific advice when needed.

The reason I’m cool on guides is I think in my experience if you want newer players to build on their skills, I think you really need to do the outreach to them, have conversations with them as a group, and one-on-one mentorship that works through the challenges they’re having.

I personally think the current guide is very in-depth, it’s just, it’s a guide, it’s there for the people that read it, but it may not translate easy into answers for new, budding authors who don’t have a strong enough grasp yet on the fundamentals of the WA/GP to apply its teachings.

[Unibot III]

My thinking is something like this...

Nov 1-8: Call for applicants to the fellowship. Open to all.
(Send telegram invitations to all WA members who have joined NS in the past 1-3 years?; or just all?)


Nov 8: Session 1 - ("Security Council 101")
- Categories, - Rules
Assignment #1: Submit an idea for a WASC resolution.
Suggested Reading: Guide to the Security Council

Nov 15: Session 2 - ("Developing an idea")
- NationStates, -Brainstorming, -Politics
Assignment #2: Observe an ongoing invasion and note the core details and timeline.
Suggested Reading: NationStates: An Incomplete History?(a secondary source - something like The Bruce's piece, but shorter and up-to-date)

Nov 22: Session 3 - ("Your first draft")
- Structure, -Narrative, -Style, -Format
Assignment #3: Read one of the selected historical resolutions and write a 200 synopsis on its basic premise and the events it is describing.

Nov 29: Session 4 - ("From print to passage")
- Drafting, -Debate, -Quorum, -Campaigning
Assignment #4: Write a hypothetical campaign to promote a historical resolution.

Dec 6: Session 5 - ("The art of research")
- Techniques, -Interviewing with purpose, -Resources
Assignment #5: Submit a first draft of a WASC resolution.
Suggested Reading: Researching NationStates: Methods and Best Practices (Something I intended to compile, with tips and tricks for researching NS history and interviewing subjects)

After Dec 13, the formal program ends - registrants who have attended 4/5 sessions and completed all assignments receive a formal graduation notice. Graduates are assigned a mentor.

Participation would be tracked with something like this in the main thread:

Fellow	"Security Council 101"	Assignment 1	"Developing an idea"	Assignment 2	"Your first draft"	Assignment 3	"From print to passage"	Assignment 4	"The art of research"	Assignment 5
Newbiestan	✅	✅	✅	✅	✅
Franky Spanz	✅	✅	✅	✅	✅	✅
Sheastadium	✅	✅	✅	✅	✅		✅
Policemen In A Row	✅		✅	✅	✅	✅	✅

[Ostrovskiy]

You could write several books about what's happened in NS in the (god, has it almost been 4?) years since I've joined, your incomplete history would be longer than A Song of Ice And Fire if it wants to be up-to-date on everything.

[Unibot III]

You could write several books about what's happened in NS in the (god, has it almost been 4?) years since I've joined, your incomplete history would be longer than A Song of Ice And Fire if it wants to be up-to-date on everything.

Haha, writing a 25,000 essay on NS history would be easy. Writing a 1,500 essay will be a worthy challenge.

[Aivintis]

This feels like something an individual region would do. Idk that the WA SC community is structured enough for it.

[Unibot III]

This feels like something an individual region would do. Idk that the WA SC community is structured enough for it.

Individual regions would do (and have done) something like this, but it’s the wider WASC community, I’d argue, that is better positioned to host it because participation can be open and not tied to a region-membership. The challenge, I think as you’ve identified, is rebuilding and restructuring the community to such an extent that it can pull something like this off. I think efforts to do so would be helpful for the WA Security Council.

I’d be the happy to do some of the labour intensive parts of the series, to get it up and running, but I would prefer to see other authors take on their roles as mentors - I think we’d need around 4-5 mentors - and then assign graduated fellows to the mentors. You would be dealing with re-writes and some one-on-one conversations with the fellow(s) as they navigate the drafting of their first resolution.

[The North Polish Union]

This idea would have more merit were the major players in the SC interested in promoting authorship from a new and diverse set of authors, and not using it a playground for them to balloon their own authorship stats and lock out new authors who aren't sycophants of their already-influential cliques.

Sadly this is not the case.