Wednesday, May 19, 2021

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

Jumble:

19-05-2021 11:01:43 UTC

imperial

lemon: she/her

19-05-2021 11:07:07 UTC

for

Josh: he/him

19-05-2021 11:30:25 UTC

against  The Broker making their own art will be able to say “This art was made by me, Josh” as the attribution, which Clucky will then reproduce in the gallery, identifying art with artist before responses have been made.

pokes:

19-05-2021 11:52:15 UTC

against You can already do that, Josh

Josh: he/him

19-05-2021 11:59:42 UTC

I don’t think that’s really true; under the status quo:

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

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:

19-05-2021 12:04:28 UTC

You could also put the text “Made by Josh!!! XD” in the picture, which Clucky doesn’t have the leeway to cover up.

Josh: he/him

19-05-2021 12:15:54 UTC

Hah, yes, I suppose you could.

That’s actually a pretty good catch-up strategy, if you’re really behind.

Jason: he/him

19-05-2021 13:07:53 UTC

imperial

Raven1207: he/him

19-05-2021 14:02:12 UTC

against

Kevan: Oracle he/him

19-05-2021 14:41:15 UTC

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

19-05-2021 17:37:35 UTC

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 for now

Trapdoorspyder:

20-05-2021 00:48:06 UTC

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.  for

pokes:

20-05-2021 12:27:14 UTC

for CoV

Tofuna:

20-05-2021 16:35:58 UTC

for