Community Guidelines might be a better place for this, as a statement about BlogNomic’s community? It’s also more likely to be read by new players, and means we don’t have to worry about making something gamestate by talking about it.

Yeah, you’re right. I changed it.

Josh published this on the Discord and invited Recusant votes.

I don’t think Recusant votes are permitted because they are scoped narrowly to the non-dynastic Ruleset, and Community Guidelines are not part of the Ruleset, dynastic or otherwise. But I think this position would be a beneficial one and am generally in favour.

While admittedly only having given it a cursory read at the moment, I would accept the argument that the community guidelines (as not being a part of the ruleset) are subject to be changed without proposal at all. I think that would probably be worth fixing, but at the moment I see this proposal more as a courtesy than a necessary part of changing the guidelines.

That being said, I will be FOR

Actually, hmm. Enacting Proposals only formally causes changes to the Ruleset and gamestate. Since Community Guidelines are neither, strictly speaking this Proposal has no effect at all (being only an advisory recommendation if enacted), and thus trivially has no effect outside amending the non-dynastic Ruleset. Arguably that makes Recusant votes legal.

Interesting conundrum. I’m curious what others think.

Wait, or are the Community Guidelines gamestate? It is a “wiki page[] that the rules[...] explicitly mention” and is not one of the carveouts (“the FAQ, the dynastic histories and discussion pages”).

I’m not sure if the Community Guidelines are gamestate or not, but I am very much in favor of this being added.

Yes, Community Guidelines should be gamestate under the “explicitly mention” clause.

and I’ve updated the AI-generated dynastic banner to one that uses an 1893 public domain line drawing instead, with the blessing of the banner’s original creator JonathanDark.

I agree that the Community Guidelines are gamestate and can’t be changed except via the normal means for changing gamestate (proposal, CFJ, dynastic rule).

I agree that it’s probably best to avoid generative AI for non-gamestate content like banners and ascension addresses.

I do have some curiosity about what an LLM would be like as a player (as opposed to a generator of artistic works), but given that that would need rules support anyway, it’s probably OK to exclude it in the guidelines.