I agree with Timo: it is descending by contribution to the paper.

With respect to the creative person option you ask, in my opinion, and according to the "descending by contribution" aspect, if the person who got the idea does the majority of the work, that person goes first; if another person is the one who contributed the most, even thouhg he/she didn't have the idea, that person deserves to be the first author.

It depends also in the collaborators, because sometimes they are so eager to appear in the first place (even if they only wrote part of the paper) that they leave the person who actually worked at last.

In the other hand, sometimes the most important person (maybe the one who had the idea and revises the work) goes at last, because he/she is checking on everyone else.

This topic can cause problems among the authors. When problems arise, the question becomes the following: how important is it for you to appear as first author?

I agree with Timo: it is descending by contribution to the paper.

With respect to the creative person option you ask, in my opinion, and according to the "descending by contribution" aspect, if the person who got the idea does the majority of the work, that person goes first; if another person is the one who contributed the most, even thouhg he/she didn't have the idea, that person deserves to be the first author.

It depends also in the collaborators, because sometimes they are so eager to appear in the first place (even if they only wrote part of the paper) that they leave the person who actually worked at last.

In the other hand, sometimes the most important person (maybe the one who had the idea and revises the work) goes at last, because he/she is checking on everyone else.

This topic can cause problems among the authors. When problems arise, the question becomes the following: how important is it for you to appear as first author?

A good question. In some universities and amongst some subject disciplines, the name of the supervising academic nearly always comes first. I think that this is wrong. Authorship should depend on the degree of contribution.

Thank you all for your answers so far :) Any other controversial opinions on the topic?

Mob authorship is very rare in philosophy. Crowds are often controlled by either acknowledging their 'useful suggestions' in the acknowledgment page in the case of a book, or a footnote in the case of an article.

Mob authorship is, indeed, rare but does occur and is inevitably a bad idea. Firstly, why is it necessary to have so many authors? Have all of them really made a contribution? Secondly, as an author myself, I find that making reference to so many authors looks bizarre so I tend to avoid it. Hence, authors who get involved in mob authorship may find that this backfires on them - reducing, not enhancing, their citation rates.

The appropriate way is to write the order of authors according to   the degree and significance of their contribution to the article.

If the authors are a research scholar and his supervisor, some universities insist to write the scholar's name first.

The following is a good previous discussion on this topic in RG.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Does_the_order_of_authors_in_an_article_follow_certain_guidelines

I agree with the descending order of contribution (and I usually put my advisor's name as the last one).