Related to the Ruleset being outdated and needing a Rulekeepor and that driving me mad lol, If I get the chance to go code it, I'll definitely try to make a thing like this: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 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. 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.) --- 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> 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]. > > > >
