Board Thread:Wiki Discussion/@comment-27713488-20180106040608/@comment-31763506-20180522032434

Sorry if I was not being clear. The existing policy makes no mention whatsoever of official TLS blog posts announcing patron-only builds as a distinct class of game information sources that are allowed or disallowed. There isn't anything about public statements about the build content from SL in a more general sense. I actually had no idea patron-only builds were described in announcements on the TLS blog because I don't follow it at all, so as far as I was concerned, the only way you would know that Dari and Uyae were had been haremed was by reading the description in patron-only Patreon post or by playing the patron-only content. I doubt I'm the only editor who wasn't aware of the TLS blog announcements.

I saw the addition of Dari to the harem on her character page and briefly toyed with the idea of reverting it but decided it was not worth the effort of enforcement; since the change was small and the build would be public within a week.

Whether the such enforcement was sensible or desirable...

Let me be lawyerly and suggest some hypothetical casuistry.

Suppose we make a clarifying exception that says any information disclosed by SL about the patron-only build is fair game, especially release notes on the TLS blog. In the case of 0.34.0, in addition to the harem additions, the release notes mention Orcent's Bar subquest. The bar conversations are mostly lore and character development for Orcent and his interlocutors, they don't advance the story. So if someone went and added some new biographical info on the Orcent page drawing from character development revealed in the bar conversations during the patron build blackout period, are those edits against the rules? Is reverting them good policy? What if the material added to the Orcent page wasn't character info but a listing of bars where the conversations could be found? My intuition is that the latter is more spoilery and less desirable, but it isn't really story related info. How much patron-only info can we allow to be implicitly allowable from any given explicit disclosure?

Another direction from which you can attack the current policy statement is that since the rule is not to include any "story info, or any info that might be falsified by future changes", it is therefore permissible to disclose anything that is both NOT related to the game's story AND not likely to be falsified in by future changes. I'm having a bit of a hard time coming up with anything that satisfies both criteria, but possibly the addition of a new State or Element to the game database? Of course, there's also an enormous amount of potential wiggle room based on how likely different editors consider the probability to be that SL might make a change that would falsify any given piece of information.

I vaguely remember having another fringe case when I started writing this, but my brain is now clocking out for the night, so I hope the above is actually helpful and not drivel.

The only argument in favor of the removal of the Dari and Uyae hareming would be that not making a blanket ban against all patron-only info on pages puts far more potential work on admins and editors in terms of figuring out which info falls under the exceptions and which does not. Rules that maximize reasonability are great in principle, but ones requiring enough interpretation that they increase the amount of work the admins and major editors have to do might be more trouble then they are worth.