With all due respect, I find the excessively overbright false enthusiasm to be tiresome and not constructive to having a proper conversation – it's fake and it's shallow and feels dishonest – From your wording choices, it's seems that you felt that my questions were negatively geared and attacking or seeking to undermine you in some way; not my intention; and yet you chose to respond with a level of enthusiasm that doesn't match the way that you, the person posting, felt about my comments (using terms like 'insinuate' and 'pontificate' could be considered insulting and hurtful). Don't do that, please. I'd appreciate it if you'd drop the PR pitch and sales-speak when answering me, if that's all right please... I'd just like to have a discussion that asks legitimate questions and seeks serious answers, for everyone's benefit.
It would also save you some time and energy... Be positive by all means, that's great to see! But it's easier to have a sensible conversation when we don't have to wade through a mass of capitalised buzz-words that only bear a tangential or even non-present relation to the question being asked.
To confirm the points being asked about: You're guild hopes to enforce a strong no-spoilers policy on all of their social presences and platforms (your rules say that these guild rules apply and are enforced in all such spaces).
My concern with this is that this means that new players who join up to play will not actually allowed to discuss the game, events that take place in it, actions that were taken in relation to their outcomes, character development or anything really at all about the game itself above the mechanical level (builds, general tactics, controls etc.). No matter how excited and enthusiastic about it they may be, they may expect to face discipline or cautions for discussing these things in any open forum space on any of your socials, in order to preserve others from being spoiled.
If I'm misreading you on that, could you clarify how you handle people's desire to speak about the game, alongside people's right not to be spoiled about it; what lines are you drawing and where, so that others can understand in advance?
==
To be clear in your response regarding exploits: You (you appear to use 'We', speaking for the guild, and 'I', speaking for yourself, fairly interchangeably, so I apologise if I'm confused here) will decide based your your own judgement what counts as 'how the game is meant to be played' and the guild will consider anything outside that to be exploitation.
My main concern is that it sounds as though you are of the opinion that something as simple as using the game's own internal systems as presented as a literal part of the game – i.e. saving and loading – should be called exploitative. The question I would ask here is: Are your rules rules, or are they 'guidelines' subject to enforcement or disregard based on how your individual officers feel about a situation personally?
Here's an example, supposing you do decide that save-scumming is an exploit... If a group of four players has a conversation go poorly, and ends up in a fight that they, upon discussion generally feel they do not want to have and may not be able to win, and vote to reload – and three want to do this, and have the conversation go as they'd prefer and more enjoy, and one is not comfortable with doing this, but doesn't speak out because they know that they are supposed to be embodying the 'no drama' principle of their new guild... If that individual later decides that they're uncomfortable with what happened enough to speak to an officer about it, if sounds as though, from your rules, the officer in question would be obliged to invoke discipline (even if that just be having a talk to them and reminding them that that behaviour wasn't appropriate by guild code) on the other three members. Is that correct?
==
For the last bit, I'm very concerned that it sounds like you're doubling down on that rule being as ridiculous as it seems.
It sounds, from your answer, as though your guild members are not allowed to play with other non-guild members without first sourcing from the guild; that if they wish, say, for their daughter to play the game with them, they must first have their daughter fill out a guild sign up, because if she doesn't, and you play with her, without filling your party from the guild first (and thus not being able to play with her because the party filled), then you'll get in trouble (if anyone finds out you did).
No thank you. That's invasive and harmful, and it's controlling and crippling on your guild members. That kind of enforcement is not something that anyone should ever want to be a part of, so I do sincerely hope that I've misunderstood your response.
Have I misunderstood? No sensible guild would ever actually require their members to sign their friends or family up to their guild before allowing them to play a game with them – but that does appear to be what you're saying here, and that's a major 'run for the hills' red flag for me.
To be clear on what this looks like right now: What your rules say, and what you seem to be confirming strongly, is that if I am a member of your guild, and I have three friends that I'd like to play a game of BG3 with... I am required by your guild rules to First ask them to sign up to the guild, in order to play with them, because if they are not guild members then I am obliged to fill the game I want to play with guild members first, and not play with my friends... and if my friends are not the kind of people who would be a good fit for your guild, or if they don't wish to sign up, then I am not allowed to play with them and still remain in your guild, because guild has to come first – I must choose between the guild and my other friends, in that scenario... Or else I dishonestly just play with my friends, disobey the guild rules and don't tell anyone that I played a game with non-guildies, without asking guildies first, and hope that no-one finds out I did, because I'm not supposed to do that.
This does not sound healthy, so I'd appreciate a clarification on what you actually mean with that rule.
