A fair LORDNINE attendance and contribution policy guilds can reuse

Attendance can support capacity planning, points, reward eligibility, leadership review, or recognition. Those are different purposes. Publish the allowed use before collecting data, and do not quietly reuse a planning record as a universal measure of member value.

Contribution needs the same boundary. If materials, event work, mentoring, or administrative work count, define how they are verified and capped. A visible but easy-to-measure action should not automatically outweigh less visible work that the policy claims to value.

Late arrivals, standby assignments, disconnects, alternate characters, and approved absences are normal. Define their status while the examples are anonymous, then apply the same rule to officers and members. If leadership can override a result, name the authority and require a reason.

A useful status system stays small enough to explain. Present, partial, standby, excused, and absent may be enough. More categories can create false precision when the underlying evidence does not support them.

Scenario A: a member signs up, is assigned standby, remains available for the whole window, and is never called in. If standby supports the guild's capacity, the policy should say whether it earns attendance or contribution before this happens to a popular member.

Scenario B: an officer joins late after a connection problem and supplies evidence inside the correction window. The same partial or corrected status that applies to a member must apply here. Scenario C: a member donates materials but misses the event. If contribution and attendance serve different decisions, keep the records separate instead of converting one into the other after the fact.

These are policy tests, not reports of real ForgeKeep customers. Replace them with anonymized, consented examples only when a guild has approved publication and the result can be supported without exposing member-level data.

A correction request should identify the event, requested status, and reason. An authorized reviewer records the decision and timestamp. Preserve the original entry and the adjustment so future reviewers can distinguish an initial mistake from a later policy change.

Review patterns at the process level: repeated OCR mismatches, unclear windows, or one role handling every dispute. Do not publish member-level shame lists. A useful audit asks whether the rule produced consistent decisions and whether corrections were resolved on time.

Store detailed evidence only where authorized guild roles can see it. Public pages can show a blank workflow or a consented, anonymized example; they should not expose names, Discord identifiers, screenshots, OCR text, balances, or contribution histories. Retain evidence only as long as the stated decision and appeal process require it.

Give the policy an effective date and a review date. When a rule changes, explain why and decide explicitly whether existing records remain under the old rule. A season boundary is often clearer than retroactively recalculating contested results.