On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 10:48 AM ais523 via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > On Mon, 2023-02-13 at 10:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 9:53 AM Forest Sweeney via agora-business > > <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > > Do you want to be able to just send "ANGER" to a-b, and for it to mean "I > > > object to every intent to declare apathy."? > > > Or "I floop" to motivate the horses, or "Ohgodnotanother" to mean "I > > > submit > > > the following proposal:"? > > > > I think it would be useful to have a fairly flexible Agoran lexicon > > that changes rapidly-enough to be easy to add for current gameplay, > > but is stable enough to have reference value for everyone. It would > > be great to say "I QWANG these items" to mean "I take these 5 steps > > with them" at times when those 5 steps are a common sequence that > > people use regularly (QWANG is a reference to when we talked about > > doing this a few years ago). But I think this version of making it > > personal like this is too obfuscatory for me, as an officer, it seems > > a better approach would be - sure not so colorful, but more useful - > > "The Definitional Regulations are tracked by (Notary?) and can be > > added/amended/removed with some level of Consent". > > At one point, we had "zoop" which (due to the way a contract was set > up) would automatically take actions on behalf of a number of different > players in order to achieve a given result, and I *think* it worked > without explicitly needing to say whay would happen as a consequence? > (I can't remember for certain at this point, it was a while ago.) > > On another note, it's also worth considering adding things like ISIDTID > to a lexicon like that, even though they aren't actions and thus having > the meaning rules-defined isn't required to be able to interpret game > actions. It'd be helpful for new players in interpreting things like > CFJ arguments. (IIRC there's a list like this already somewhere, not > sure whether new players find it easily or not.) > > (Also, nkep feels like it fits into this sort of framework somehow, but > I'm not sure how.)
In judging CFJ 3663 (where someone tried to consciously introduce a new idiom) I tried to come up with some tests on "when has something taken on enough familiarity that it can be used as shorthand?" It's not a case that's particularly referred to these days, but maybe it has some good points: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/?3663 -G.
