Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense
ais523 wrote: (Also, nkep feels like it fits into this sort of framework somehow, but I'm not sure how.) For those unfamiliar, "nkep" was basically the "I floop" concept combined with private-agreement shenanigans. A search of the CFJ archive turns up the following, there were probably some others: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?1799 https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?2626
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:48 AM ais523 via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 10:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business > > wrote: > > > Do you want to be able to just send "ANGER" to a-b, and for it to mean "I > > > object to every intent to declare apathy."? > > > Or "I floop" to motivate the horses, or "Ohgodnotanother" to mean "I > > > submit > > > the following proposal:"? > > > > I think it would be useful to have a fairly flexible Agoran lexicon > > that changes rapidly-enough to be easy to add for current gameplay, > > but is stable enough to have reference value for everyone. It would > > be great to say "I QWANG these items" to mean "I take these 5 steps > > with them" at times when those 5 steps are a common sequence that > > people use regularly (QWANG is a reference to when we talked about > > doing this a few years ago). But I think this version of making it > > personal like this is too obfuscatory for me, as an officer, it seems > > a better approach would be - sure not so colorful, but more useful - > > "The Definitional Regulations are tracked by (Notary?) and can be > > added/amended/removed with some level of Consent". > > At one point, we had "zoop" which (due to the way a contract was set > up) would automatically take actions on behalf of a number of different > players in order to achieve a given result, and I *think* it worked > without explicitly needing to say whay would happen as a consequence? > (I can't remember for certain at this point, it was a while ago.) > > On another note, it's also worth considering adding things like ISIDTID > to a lexicon like that, even though they aren't actions and thus having > the meaning rules-defined isn't required to be able to interpret game > actions. It'd be helpful for new players in interpreting things like > CFJ arguments. (IIRC there's a list like this already somewhere, not > sure whether new players find it easily or not.) > > (Also, nkep feels like it fits into this sort of framework somehow, but > I'm not sure how.) In judging CFJ 3663 (where someone tried to consciously introduce a new idiom) I tried to come up with some tests on "when has something taken on enough familiarity that it can be used as shorthand?" It's not a case that's particularly referred to these days, but maybe it has some good points: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3663 -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense
On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 10:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business > wrote: > > Do you want to be able to just send "ANGER" to a-b, and for it to mean "I > > object to every intent to declare apathy."? > > Or "I floop" to motivate the horses, or "Ohgodnotanother" to mean "I submit > > the following proposal:"? > > I think it would be useful to have a fairly flexible Agoran lexicon > that changes rapidly-enough to be easy to add for current gameplay, > but is stable enough to have reference value for everyone. It would > be great to say "I QWANG these items" to mean "I take these 5 steps > with them" at times when those 5 steps are a common sequence that > people use regularly (QWANG is a reference to when we talked about > doing this a few years ago). But I think this version of making it > personal like this is too obfuscatory for me, as an officer, it seems > a better approach would be - sure not so colorful, but more useful - > "The Definitional Regulations are tracked by (Notary?) and can be > added/amended/removed with some level of Consent". At one point, we had "zoop" which (due to the way a contract was set up) would automatically take actions on behalf of a number of different players in order to achieve a given result, and I *think* it worked without explicitly needing to say whay would happen as a consequence? (I can't remember for certain at this point, it was a while ago.) On another note, it's also worth considering adding things like ISIDTID to a lexicon like that, even though they aren't actions and thus having the meaning rules-defined isn't required to be able to interpret game actions. It'd be helpful for new players in interpreting things like CFJ arguments. (IIRC there's a list like this already somewhere, not sure whether new players find it easily or not.) (Also, nkep feels like it fits into this sort of framework somehow, but I'm not sure how.) -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:39 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business > wrote: > > Do you want to be able to just send "ANGER" to a-b, and for it to mean "I > > object to every intent to declare apathy."? > > Or "I floop" to motivate the horses, or "Ohgodnotanother" to mean "I > submit > > the following proposal:"? > > I think it would be useful to have a fairly flexible Agoran lexicon > that changes rapidly-enough to be easy to add for current gameplay, > but is stable enough to have reference value for everyone. It would > be great to say "I QWANG these items" to mean "I take these 5 steps > with them" at times when those 5 steps are a common sequence that > people use regularly (QWANG is a reference to when we talked about > doing this a few years ago). But I think this version of making it > personal like this is too obfuscatory for me, as an officer, it seems > a better approach would be - sure not so colorful, but more useful - > "The Definitional Regulations are tracked by (Notary?) and can be > added/amended/removed with some level of Consent". > > -G. > While that sounds more useful, it is exactly as you say, less colorful. I'm for this version, although having the Notary do it instead... I'm not opposed to either :) -- 4st
DIS: Re: BUS: (@Distributor/Proposal) Player-Defined Nonsense
On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business wrote: > Do you want to be able to just send "ANGER" to a-b, and for it to mean "I > object to every intent to declare apathy."? > Or "I floop" to motivate the horses, or "Ohgodnotanother" to mean "I submit > the following proposal:"? I think it would be useful to have a fairly flexible Agoran lexicon that changes rapidly-enough to be easy to add for current gameplay, but is stable enough to have reference value for everyone. It would be great to say "I QWANG these items" to mean "I take these 5 steps with them" at times when those 5 steps are a common sequence that people use regularly (QWANG is a reference to when we talked about doing this a few years ago). But I think this version of making it personal like this is too obfuscatory for me, as an officer, it seems a better approach would be - sure not so colorful, but more useful - "The Definitional Regulations are tracked by (Notary?) and can be added/amended/removed with some level of Consent". -G.
