On Tue, Oct 21, 2008 at 1:18 PM, Benjamin Schultz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I nominate the Monster, Bayes, the AFO, and the PBA for Conductor. What the > hey, I also nominate B Nomic for Conductor.
I am willing to have Bayes take on the responsibilities of the office, with the caveat that note spends would have to be in a relatively standard format, e.g. I spend C E G to increase So-and-so's caste. I spend C E G to increase So-and-so's caste by 1. I spend C E G to increase So-and-so's caste to Delta. The AFO spends C E G to increase my caste. I spend C D E F G to increase my caste by 1. I spend C C to make the AFO gain one C Note. etc... would all work (not that I've implemented it). And it would be forgiving of typos, etc. But the point of Bayes is to be as self-sufficient as possible, so everyone would have to agree not to post conditional note spends or note spends in a weird format. (Although arguably the former usually fails anyway by CFJ 1307 now that announcements have to be specified.) Anyway, if you want someone more capable in the office, don't vote for Bayes. You could vote for me, although I wouldn't be nearly as fast. Although if root starts publishing a web report updated more frequently than the email version, I for one will vote for em. (The reason I'm responding to one of these mass nominations seriously is that the idea of having Bayes as the recordkeepor for something intrigues me. It'd be a novelty having such a fast recordkeepor, and would certainly make scams like the recent RBoA one less painful to deal with. ehird, though, hates anything vaguely resembling a strict format for email; I contest that, since people usually post actions with the same wording anyway, and roborecordkeepors would arguably obviate most of the need for conditional actions in the first place. In the case of a scam or something where you would say "If that didn't work, the following has no effect", well, there are always humans to fall back to.)
