Proposal: Provenance
Reached quorum 8 votes to 2. Enacted by Kevan.
Adminned at 20 May 2021 17:10:13 UTC
After “If an piece of art was taken from another source on the internet, a Broker is also encouraged to provide this source as part of their Art Submission.” in “Art Submissions”, add:-
If a piece of art was their own work, a Broker is encouraged to state this as its source.
In “Totaling Votes”, replace “Give each Broker who submitted a valid Ballot Submission in the previous round one Kudos” with:-
Give one Kudos to each Scrupulous Broker. (A Broker is Scrupulous if they submitted a valid Ballot Submission in the previous round, and also provided a Source for any art they submitted in the round previous to that.) (All art submitted in rounds 1-3 is considered to have had a Source provided, for the purposes of this bullet point.)
Giving an actual Kudos reward for image attribution, since the current “encouraged to provide this source” seems mild enough that the majority of players aren’t doing it.
Comments
Lulu: she/her
lemon: she/her
Josh: Ascendant he/they
pokes:
Josh: Ascendant he/they
I don’t think that’s really true; under the status quo:
That’s not quite a free-text entry field; sure, you can say to Clucky “I, Josh, found this picture at…” but Clucky would likely get away with electing just to paste the link. (You could register http://www.joshsartpicksforblognomic.com and upload all your images to there, if you wanted, I guess.)
But this does still change things; at the moment Clucky can just elect not to include an attribution if he thinks it’s against the spirit of the rule (adding the attribution is a “should” action). If this passes then it’ll still be a “should” action but there’ll be a reward involved, making the decision not to include it much more vexed.
pokes:
You could also put the text “Made by Josh!!! XD” in the picture, which Clucky doesn’t have the leeway to cover up.
Josh: Ascendant he/they
Hah, yes, I suppose you could.
That’s actually a pretty good catch-up strategy, if you’re really behind.
Janet: she/her
Raven1207: he/him
Kevan: he/him
My main concern here is that it ratchets the game towards nobody ever crediting anything, which is at odds with the dynasty’s statement that crediting is “encouraged”.
As things stand, players who aren’t crediting already will presumably continue not to, and players who are crediting will have a good reason to stop (because it’s giving away information about which artwork might be theirs, which isn’t always going to be desirable).
Clucky: he/him
What does “If a piece of art was their own work” mean?
I believe “More Bark Than Bite” from round 1 (https://blognomic.com/archive/gallery_1_chihuahua#comments) was lemon’s original work but modified from an original picture she properly sourced.
Slightly worried that this doesn’t cover round 4 submissions, as right now people need to defensively include sourcing on those submissions just incase this passes. But overall this seems fairly harmless so I’ll give it a soft
for now
Trapdoorspyder: he/him
Hm. I think that if gets made so that sources are revealed alongside the people that made the art, there isn’t too much harm in it.
pokes:
Tofuna: