To be included in a social system, a player needs to discover it. be led in understand the social vocabulary and be able to play well enough to make it worth their while. While systems designers often focus on whether a system lets anyone in or whether people can learn the vocabulary the other two factors are more often how systems exclude people. For instance, most many grant applications can many foundations will take grant applications from anyone. But only a particular subculture will know about the grants existence. Or anyone can sign up for a Tinder account. But the people without a visual sense or a facility and flirty texting are de facto locked out. Sometimes excluding people is exactly what's needed. well functioning market needs a way to exclude con artists. It probably makes sense to audition people for your acapella group and choose people who are better at singing in harmony over those who drowned out the other voices One problem with our liberal societies is that they are so righteous about including people. The only way they know how to exclude someone is by demonizing them. And words like bad actors. In terms like bad actors are part of what do this work. In this chapter, we won't spend time on the ethics of the, we won't spend time on how you might justify excluding this or that group. Or on whether it's only acceptable to exclude child pornographers and racists from your acapella group, or whether it also might be acceptable to exclude people who have a bad year. Instead, we'll take a purely practical view of inclusion and exclusion. Oftentimes, exclusion happens, even when it's not aligned with the project's values. So we'll work to detect this and see how this wrongheaded exclusion can be fixed. Other times it's necessary to exclude a group to support a certain set of values. And we'll see When this is the case and how it can be artfully done.

They're important questions about how inclusive you should strive to be. Whether in your design process, or your user base. But these are best handled in other texts, like design, justice, and co design and so on. In this chapter we'll address a related but smaller problem. How inclusive? Can you be more inclusive in support of your values? Or should you be less inclusive, to best support your values? Are you wrong? Are you excluding people in a way that doesn't actually support your values? The values you've picked for your design? include, or are you including people that don't serve the values you pick for your design? here as elsewhere in the text. I remain agnostic about how you choose the values of your design. Although I think that's very important issue. It's just not one but I have much to say about

For the player types chapter, I think there's a variation of impossibility mapping. That starts with character traits or ends with character traits and not really sure are you somehow have instead of settings or whatever, but also beliefs, I think skills, beliefs and skills, necessary. optimism, beliefs, conclusions, knowledge, those kinds of things. And character traits somewhere in there, I don't know how to fit it in, but I could figure it out. So that's part of it.