On Sunday, June 7, 2020 10:45:03 AM CDT Rebecca via agora-discussion wrote: > On Mon, Jun 8, 2020 at 1:40 AM Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion < > > agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On 6/7/2020 8:25 AM, nch wrote: > > > On Sunday, June 7, 2020 9:03:32 AM CDT Rebecca wrote: > > >> On Sun, Jun 7, 2020 at 11:44 PM Kerim Aydin wrote: > > >>> On 6/7/2020 1:00 AM, Rebecca wrote: > > >>>> I personally greatly prefer Referendum (and voted for it) because > > >>>> it's > > >>>> intuitiuve. The rules need less incomprehensible, unintuitive terms > > >>>> of > > >>> > > >>> art > > >>> > > >>>> (like Switch!) and more like Referendum imho. > > >>> > > >>> Huh, interesting. The switch language always seemed really intuitive > > > > to > > > > >>> me (and was a great improvement on what was there before). Sometimes > > > > it's > > > > >>> odd that certain things implemented as switches (like when we > > > > implemented > > > > >>> "currencies" as switches) but the underlying metaphor of flipping > > > > switches > > > > >>> always seemed pretty clear to me? > > >>> > > >>> Officer interest, for example, is a switch, and that can be "flipped" > > > > to > > > > >> any list of the five ministries, including a list with multiple of the > > > > same > > > > >> ministry. That is not how I would expect it to work. Karma is an > > >> integer > > >> number that we've shoehorned into switch for some reason. > > >> > > >> The most unintuitive and pernicious type of terminology is not totally > > > > made > > > > >> up terminology (like Blornsbwerg or whatever). It is terminology that > > > > works > > > > >> similarly, but not quite the same as, its intuitive meaning, which > > >> means > > >> that the name actually undermines the full meaning in the rules. Switch > > >> would be intuitive if it were only applied to two or three possible > > > > values > > > > >> which could be flipped. > > >> > > >> -- > > >> From R. Lee > > > > > > I agree with this. We've shoehorned every variable into switches because > > > switches have well defined conditions and protections we know work. But > > > > that > > > > > doesn't mean it makes sense. Anything with more than one value at once > > > > like a > > > > > list definitely doesn't make any sense with the metaphor. Things with > > > > infinitely > > > > > many values or values that aren't obviously opposed in some way are also > > > really stretching the metaphor. > > > > Ok, just to take the karma example. The goal is to track an integer value > > assigned to a person, that has certain behaviors (e.g. default values, > > reports that are self ratifying.) > > > > We can: > > > > (1) use natural switches - current solution, bad metaphor; > > > > (2) use currencies - I think that's a bad fit, we don't really want to > > treat these quantities as tradable objects and we want to include negative > > karma, so with an even "worse" metaphor IMO; > > > > (3) invent something new in parallel to switches (A "dial" has more values > > than a switch. A dial can go to 11.) Is it worth the verbiage of a new > > name if it functions just like switches?; > > > > (4) just change the name of "switches" and the word "flip" (is there a > > term that's more intuitive?) > > > > Don't know the answer... > > > > -G. > > > > How about we just write it out? "Karma is an integer value assigned to > > persons and Agora and tracked by the Herald in eir weekly report, which > self-ratifies. Karma defaults to zero." > Compare to current rules text "Karma is a person switch tracked by the > Herald in eir Weekly Report. Karma is an Integer switch. Agora also has an > instance of the Karma switch." > > the current text is almost exactly the same length > -- > From R. Lee
I did exactly this in the NAX contract incidentally. There are no switches in it, and it seems fine to me. -- nch
