BlogNomic: The First Dynasty of Desertfrog

It’s not binding but we punish Workers for not reading it?

How do we punish them?

I suppose if it can be demonstrated that not reading them led to them achieving victory then we can vote against their DoV, but it would have to have that outcome in a way that would be distinct from someone who read them and disregarded them, which the rule as written allows for…

Typically? It’s a newb trap where, if they admit to not knowing about it, we apply an unspecified but probably light punishment by CfJ. But if they continue to demonstrate lack of awareness, that leads to “in cases of… repeated violations, remove them from the game and bar them from rejoining”. This is notably a much harsher punishment than reading them for the purpose of willfully violating them.

Seems like a pretty niche concern?

(The rule also says “be aware of”, not “read”... It’s honestly hard to see how much less binding this could possibly be)

I think Bucky’s concerned about unexpected negative interactions with “If any of these rules are found to have been broken, or if a Worker’s behaviour or actions are otherwise deemed unacceptable (socially or otherwise), a Proposal or CfJ may be made to reprimand or punish the perpetrator or, in cases of extreme or repeated violations, remove them from the game and bar them from rejoining.”

The “deemed unacceptable” is a good fit, but the “any of these rules are found to have been broken” isn’t.

That said, I think the Appendix definition of “should” as “is recommended that” saves us here.

I guess my argument is that “breaking” this rule constitutes of not being aware of the community guidelines. You don’t even have to click the link to the page to be aware of the community guidelines; it would take a studied, deliberate refusal to acknowledge that the page exists to successfully fail to be aware that the community guidelines exist. Are we really worried about that coming up?

If it comes up repeatedly then it’s probably the case that the Worker in question has engaged in otherwise unacceptable behaviour anyway.

also mentorships exist and the Guidelines almost certainly would be brought up then

I think this is probably okay but I feel like this bit in particular could use some touchup:

> The BlogNomic community is largely competitive, and while personal definitions of success in the game vary it is often the case that a high premium is placed on winning. This is not enforced, however - those players who simply wish to have fun or participate in co-creation are welcome and should not have their approaches or contributions dismissed.

To me that comes across as “competitive first, but you’re free to play however you want”. I think the core of the message of “People have fun in their own ways” needs to stick around, but I don’t think the community guidelines should prioritize how people have fun, and the “approaches or contributions dismissed” also maybe needs some work

I think its both reasonable for a competitive player to be like “No, this rule seems too silly and random for the kind of game I’m hoping to play” and also for a person who just wants to have some fun go “No, this rule feels like it would just lead to people optimizing the fun out of the game”. Both of those votes are valid, even if to some extent the dismiss the contribution of players style of play.

but… I think stuff like that can always be adjusted. better to have something than nothing

, counter-proposal blocked by hiatus.

the problem of “oh no, a newbie hasn’t read the community guidelines! they might eventually face severe punishment!” can be fixed with extreme ease by… sending them a link to the community guidelines before it gets 2 that point

but I’d be interested to see Bucky’s counter-proposal

Just leaving this comment as a reminder to myself to not accidentally veto this when cleaning up proposals for the next dynasty.