On 1/10/20 9:48 PM, James Cook wrote: > Is this intended to be along the same lines as Trigon's "Interesting > Chambers" proto from September? (Subject lines: "Proto for a new > voting/chamber system" and "Interesting Chambers v2".) > > Your proposal is interesting. How did you imagine these being used? > > One thing this makes me think of: it would be interesting if Rules, > regulations, provisions in contracts, etc could all be the same kind > of entity, with some of them existing / having power only at the > pleasure of others. E.g. a provision in a contract only has power > insofar as the Rule about contracts says contract rules can have > power. Is that what you had in mind here? > > - Falsifian
The idea was that they would be used for precedence and segregation of topics, with new modules being created/destroyed, and rules being reassigned, as needed. I recall you mentioning that you would like a system where judges could search topic-relevant rules and a few core rules instead of potentially anywhere in the ruleset. No, it wasn't based on Interesting Chambers. It was meant to be general over the modules, instead of dealing with specific ones, and not to deal with proposals, only rules. -- Jason Cobb
