As to officers’ tooling, this could also be handled as a strong encouragement to share your code with your successor. ---- Publius Scribonius Scholasticus p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com
> On Jun 25, 2017, at 2:31 PM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 25, 2017 at 1:33 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: >> One of the huge strengths of Agora is that its entire history can be >> deduced from the weekly/monthly office reports, making it easy to >> determine facts about past gamestates; and all actions also go via the >> lists, so you can interpolate the gamestate in between, as well. > > I agree, which is why my proposal would still have reports and actions > being sent to the lists - the wiki would basically serve as a > substitute for players manually performing that interpolation, in > order to allow for more fast-paced gameplay. (It would also serve as > the basis of reports, of course.) > >> I'm in favour of more office automation but I'd rather it be done via >> parsing messages sent to the lists, rather than requiring actions to be >> entered externally. > > Do you object to systems that require (or at least strongly encourage) > actions to be entered externally, but send automated messages to the > lists reflecting them? Requiring players to manually send messages in > a parseable format is definitely also viable, but I like it somewhat > less for various reasons, including the confusion caused if they get > the format wrong. > > Also because there's the potential for less-than-fully automated > updates, which can be more flexible. In the future (again, not > proposing this for the present), imagine the wiki could be configured > to just send each change to a given page as a diff to the list, along > with the edit message. Then, we could define the edit message as the > canonical action from the Rules' perspective, but players would be > expected to make substance of the edit reflect the effects. For > example, I could make an edit with the message "pay ais523 2 shinies", > and the diff would change our balances to suit. I think this would > actually be pretty readable, not just a form of spamming the lists - > you could tell pretty easily from the diff whether the action was > carried out correctly, and having the old and new state in the message > would actually be helpful in understanding the context of the action. > > Compared to this, a fully automated shiny tracking system would be > preferable in some ways, but would be more dependent on the whims of > whoever wrote the code, harder to modify to account for rule changes, > harder to transition between recordkeepors, etc.
