Policy Discussion: Forums as Intent re: Submissions
View previous topic | View next topic >
Post new topic Reply to topic
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
   
Author Message

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3141
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Policy Discussion: Forums as Intent re: Submissions
Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:29 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Given some recent conversations, policy precedent needs to be set regarding using the forums to discuss intent re: submissions.

The loudest voice in these discussions has created a serious conflict of logic, and I need some help to discern policy here.

Argument: Submissions have been discussed on the forums, but was not submitted. Since it had been discussed, it should be taken as read that intent was there.

Counterpoint: Procedure and practice is in place to formalize submissions, forums should be used for discussion only and in no way be used as bearing for the submission process.

Discuss Please.



Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Re: Policy Discussion: Forums as Intent re: Submissions
Reply with quote
Posted on Sat Nov 23, 2019 5:58 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
Given some recent conversations, policy precedent needs to be set regarding using the forums to discuss intent re: submissions.

The loudest voice in these discussions has created a serious conflict of logic, and I need some help to discern policy here.

Argument: Submissions have been discussed on the forums, but was not submitted. Since it had been discussed, it should be taken as read that intent was there.

Counterpoint: Procedure and practice is in place to formalize submissions, forums should be used for discussion only and in no way be used as bearing for the submission process.

Discuss Please.


I’d argue for the latter, even though I hold a more Open view.
The forums are for discussion, the submissions are the formal trial. The forums could be used to argue for more submissions or resubmissions, but If It’s in the library, it’s in. Submissions are not the weave, they are the text and image.

I, however, hold that regarding weaves we should transition to a more dynamic view of the weaves library, with colaborative text and and image sourcing. As such, I Will paraphrase a license deal I have made in private:

”I, as copyright holder, would like to grant the current BOD, reserving the right to not extend This right to new admins, full rights to do whatever they please with my weave submissions as of This date, with the following reservations: I would like to retain the link to from my profile, as it’s viewed today. 8 in 1 Orbital Sheet and (Classical) Byzantine Cube are not to attributed to antiquity under the current format.

I reserve the right to cancel This deal for any extant weave, prior to changes being made, and This is not applicable to submissions not in the library yet”.

Tl;dr: Help yourself to improving my submissions.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: April 02, 2008
Posts: 2283
Submissions: 42
Location: Lincoln, NE

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:21 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Sorry for my obtuseness, but we are talking about weave submissions here correct?


Once you stop learning, you stop living, so...
Ask questions.
Try new things.
Share what you know.

MailleCode V2.0 T5.3 R4.4 E0.0 Feur MFe.sBr Wg Cwb G.7-5.1 I3.1-11 N20.5 Pj Dcdjt Xa1w2 S08

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 25, 2019 2:59 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

MusicMan wrote:
Sorry for my obtuseness, but we are talking about weave submissions here correct?


Yes. A weave was demonstrated and named on the forums, but never submitted, suppousedly because of a private conversation with the weave admin.

Years later, it was submitted, by a different user, who independently discovered it, the same way the original poster found it. With a small caveat. They endes up on the path in very different ways. The person who submitted the weave named it according to the Path they took.

When the original poster found the new submission, they demanded that the submission be replaced with a new submission, designed around the old topic instead.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Joined: March 10, 2015
Posts: 51
Submissions: 6

Re: Policy Discussion: Forums as Intent re: Submissions
Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 25, 2019 8:52 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
Procedure and practice is in place to formalize submissions, forums should be used for discussion only and in no way be used as bearing for the submission process.


Yes, adhering to submission procedures is critical to reducing the workload of the weave admin, a key bottleneck.

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
Submissions have been discussed on the forums, but was not submitted. Since it had been discussed, it should be taken as read that intent was there.


Yes, people are human and make mistakes. There ought to be a way to equitably correct things.

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
I need some help to discern policy here.


The crux of the issue is naming rights. The weave in question had two proposed names, one was posted to the forums, and one was submitted to the database, from separate independent discoverers.

There's a concept in law of "sleeping on ones rights." Failing to take a corrective action in a timely manner might preclude one from ever doing so, particularly when an extended delay adversely impacts others.

This is a case of "Oops, I should have submitted that. Can we just pretend I did and backdate it before this other person's submission?" To me, it seems reasonable to allow that after weeks, or even months have passed, if the facts support doing so. I don't know where the line is, but--in the situation at hand--four years is way beyond the line. That's an excessively long time to not follow through with submitting a weave and still credibly claim that one cares about the naming rights, especially when that torpedoes someone else who did adhere to procedure. What is equitable for that other person ought to be considered.

As for policy, I think that merely discussing an unsubmitted weave on the forum should not reserve the naming rights for perpetuity. Being "first" matters, but indolence can diminish it

As for procedure, perhaps new weaves should be posted to the database as "Weave #xxxx" with the proposed name in the description. If there are no legitimate objections to the name after a set time, the name becomes canon. A probationary period for new weaves may help if a similar situation happens again.

Joined: March 11, 2010
Posts: 115
Submissions: 9
Location: NOLA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:29 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

Official submissions are official. I suggest both members and admins acknowledge this and encourage submissions even if they believe they will fail to pass. I honestly have no idea why this was ever an issue once it was obvious the "original" had never actually been submitted in the first place.

Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3141
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:48 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

MusicMan wrote:
Sorry for my obtuseness, but we are talking about weave submissions here correct?


To be clear, that’s not ALL that is being discussed.

This policy and decision should affect all forum intent regarding submissions.



While the original and first issue that sparked this conversation was regarding a weave submission, there are more far reaching implications.

I also do not want this thread to devolve into a discussion of that one specific instance. There is already a thread or two devoted to the specifics.



Joined: August 30, 2008
Posts: 3141
Submissions: 20
Location: Burlington, ON, Canada

Re: Policy Discussion: Forums as Intent re: Submissions
Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:51 am
Link to Post: Link to Post

EricN wrote:
As for policy, I think that merely discussing an unsubmitted weave on the forum should not reserve the naming rights for perpetuity. Being "first" matters, but indolence can diminish it

As for procedure, perhaps new weaves should be posted to the database as "Weave #xxxx" with the proposed name in the description. If there are no legitimate objections to the name after a set time, the name becomes canon. A probationary period for new weaves may help if a similar situation happens again.


Interesting.

This actually opens an old conversation regarding Weave Technical Names vs “Flowery” naming... Stay tuned for a new thread regarding this specific topic, as I feel it’s outside the scope of the discussion as it relates to submission and intent.



Joined: August 05, 2010
Posts: 623
Submissions: 28
Location: Bar Harbor, ME, USA

Reply with quote
Posted on Mon Nov 25, 2019 11:49 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

I'm on the side of official submissions only, as long as they are made "in good faith". If "in good faith" is difficult to determine, the one who made the submission trumps the one who started the discussions.

The following cannot be used as arguments for "not in good faith" against a submission:

    Old forum threads (started over a year ago).
    Inactive forum threads.
    Off-site proof of "I did this first".


The following can be used as arguments for "not in good faith":

    Forum thread that had a post within 1 month from when the submission was submitted.
    Proof that the image or text used to describe the submission is not originally from the submitter (Note: this is specifically for copyright infringement)
    (For weaves) Previous submission that was transferred into a gallery image.


I don't want to discourage people from discussing "things not in the library" on the forums if someone decides to not play nicely and steal credit. I also think it is somewhat of an unreasonable (albeit desirable) request to take into account external sources for submissions.


while(!project.isFinished())
project.addRing();
// Maille Code V2.0 T7.1 R5.6 Eo.n Fper MFe.s Wsm Caws G0.8-1.6 I2.4-8.0 Pn Dcdejst Xw1 S07

Joined: August 30, 2010
Posts: 776
Submissions: 43

Re: Policy Discussion: Forums as Intent re: Submissions
Reply with quote
Posted on Sun Dec 15, 2019 12:14 pm
Link to Post: Link to Post

Daemon_Lotos wrote:
EricN wrote:
As for policy, I think that merely discussing an unsubmitted weave on the forum should not reserve the naming rights for perpetuity. Being "first" matters, but indolence can diminish it

As for procedure, perhaps new weaves should be posted to the database as "Weave #xxxx" with the proposed name in the description. If there are no legitimate objections to the name after a set time, the name becomes canon. A probationary period for new weaves may help if a similar situation happens again.


Interesting.

This actually opens an old conversation regarding Weave Technical Names vs “Flowery” naming... Stay tuned for a new thread regarding this specific topic, as I feel it’s outside the scope of the discussion as it relates to submission and intent.


How’s the new thread coming?

Back to the topic: I believe we should appoint a working group to use this topic to formulate a policy to adopt.


Total Nerd: MScDS, Mailler, Gamer.

Post new topic Reply to topic
Jump to:  
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT. The time now is Thu Apr 09, 2020 6:29 am
M.A.I.L. Forum Index -> League Business
Display posts from previous: