> (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?)
I definitely prefer 1 or 4. When I first read the ruleset, the word "switch" seemed strange to me (maybe because there are usually more than two values). So maybe a different word would make sense. But it's a simple and broadly-applicable concept. We can provide one common definition of what it means to track a switch, what happens when a switch's value is indeterminate, what it means to secure a switch, etc. If I get around to submitting my ratification of events proto, I'll just have to adjust the rules on ratifying switches in reports, instead of tracking down a bunch of different switch-like things and explaining ratification for them all individually. - Falsifian
