Part of that is that Agora has made a conscious decision to be more prose-based, which I like. Agora doesn't have to be everything for everyone. I strongly oppose any GNDT-like thing being in the rule set or any mandated workflow or language for proposals. On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 17:11 Cuddle Beam <cuddleb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Yeah, the gamestate thing would need to be separate (aside from using a > BlogNomic GNDT-like thing and start to speak in some ad hoc conlang like > replace_all(X, Y) or just manually do it all, I can't think of a better > solution). I'm mostly concerned with rule page itself. > > And yeah, each person definitely has their own preferred way, but perhaps > its compatible. I don't know for sure either if it would work for everyone > and if it will actually profit Agora in the long run without resting it, > but I hold that conjecture that it would. I'm generally for automatizing as > much as possible because it feels like we're still doing things with > abacuses and sticks when a lot of us are more technologically competent > than that. > > Just personal conjecture though, mostly influenced by BN and how more > smoother I perceive it to be than Agora in this regard. > > On Wed, Jul 19, 2017 at 10:42 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> 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 Related to the Ruleset being outdated and needing a Rulekeepor and that 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> >> 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]. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >
