On 07/19/17 15:07, Cuddle Beam wrote: > Related to the Ruleset being outdated and needing a Rulekeepor and > that driving me mad lol, If I get the chance to go code it, I'll > definitely try to make a thing like this: > > https://i.gyazo.com/a9d07830e67fa7b2901aa70b9f3987e7.png
This looks fine for small changes, but terrible for big changes. I start from the concept and work my way back to the rules, so there's no point in using an application that forces you to start from the rules and edit up. > > The output in the right can be in "Beam Language" or something. Then, > some bot can wait for an Assessor post and automatically read the Beam > Language changes and update the Ruleset accordingly, immediately. We > write the description of edits to the ruleset like robots in proposals > anyway, so Beam Language would be both human-readable and bot-readable. Not really. Many proposals include language like 'replace all instances of X with Y' or 'increment all values of X by 1'. Also, what about gamestate changes that aren't rules? The economics overhaul proposal changes some switch values; it's changing the gamestate without changing the rules. > > The thing would be to have everyone use the application to write their > proposals (which, if I make it good enough, everyone will, because the > tool should strive to be more comfortable than doing it all without > tool-assistance, and eventually passing a rule to make it mandatory > (at least Beam Language format) should be easy from there.) If it was possible to make a writing platform that was 'good enough' for everyone, we wouldn't live in a world where nearly every writer, coder, and poet uses a different toolchain. Writing is taking your thoughts and putting them into a human-readable format, and everyone thinks differently enough that no single method is best. For instance, I start all my work as handwriting (and drawing and diagraming). Then I write some proto-language in vim. And then I start integrating the necessary rule changes manually. I've tried using a diff system in the third part, but it always seems like a distraction rather than a help. > > --- > > I think that would also work. It kind of depends on what is considered > to be gamestate or not and then setting it up around that. But yeah, I > agree with that it could work too, because its set around "cards" > which seems more gamestate-y than promises being in the state of being > broken or not. > > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 8:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu > <mailto:ke...@u.washington.edu>> wrote: > > > > On Wed, 19 Jul 2017, Cuddle Beam wrote: > > Are promises gamestate? Are their status of being broken or not, > gamestate? If so, then no > > unregulated action (for example, "If Bob posts a poem on a-d, I > will pay them 4 shinies") > > can actually cause the change of them going from unbroken to broken. > > It's a bit twisted, but it's *possible* there's a loophole here. > I don't think > it works with your example, but how about the following: > > "I pledge to prevent Bob from posting a poem on a-d". > > If Bob does post a poem to a-d, I've broken my pledge. > > Which is tracked in that it's cardable, and (due to the poor way > the Referee rules > are written) creates a platonic requirement for the Referee to > track/announce the > rule violation. > > Which makes Bob posting a poem to a-d regulated...? > > But of course, 'posting a poem' is not something we can > practically stop Bob > from doing. > > But we can create a legal fiction around it. We can say "since > Bob's poem posting > is now regulated, and the rules don't say how e can do it, e > CANNOT do it." So, when > e posts some text labelled "A Poem by Bob", we create the legal > fiction that it's > really an *attempt* to post a poem, and we say "you tried to do a > regulated thing, > but the rules don't say how you CAN do it, so you failed." > > Which means... legally, I *did* keep my pledge and prevent em from > posting a > poem :). > > [note: I think the recent rules change just changes the word > "regulated" in the > above to "restricted" without affecting any mechanics - kept the > term "regulated" > for the purposes of this conversation]. > > > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
