Forest Sweeney via agora-discussion [2023-06-14 08:58]: > Ok, so, I'm just imagining the implementation of this right now. > The only way player properties exist is by a clear and unambiguous > definition, which the nomos would have to track each definition if it has a > reference.
Yeah. > Are definitions meant to be like "player birthdays" or > something? otherwise I'm not sure what other protected properties exist > "how many assets owned by that player" "player names" "total blots in the > past year" "number of CFJs judged" "total months in an office" "number of > reports published" "total rules proposed". I don't get it. You just listed 7 properties. How do they not exist? > I also imagine that just because > it is clear and unambiguous doesn't necessarily mean "easily resolvable", > making this a very complex office if e is responsible for determining > outcomes. Actually, it does. More experienced players can back me on this, perhaps, but as far as I understand, not easily resolvable properties are considered ambiguous. > Otherwise... I'm not seeing a natural, unambiguous, and reasonable way that > player properties relate to anything based on this rule alone, I honestly did not understand this sentence. > nor how player properties would come into existence. I really don't think they can COME into existence, but that is more of a metaphysical discussion. Properties simply are time-indexed functions from players (at that time) to some range of values. > Without that, this rule doesn't do anything, as those properties are > used in the definition of classes etc. Again, properties were defined, and can be used later in the rule. > Secondly, Policies don't do anything, which might be intentional, so that's > probably fine I guess. Yes they do. Or rather, things are done with them. When players enact policies, certain players gain points in the form of the Equality switch. > That's my two cents anyways, it just feels like a nightmare for whoever the > Nomos is, and potentially a CFJ generator as well. I don't think its a nightmare. The only leeway for the reports is rephrasing the definition of properties, though it is debatable whether two extensionaly equivalent properties are the same if not the same intensionally. As for the CFJs: that is part of the whole point. I'm testing Agora's notion of isonomy. But anyway, thanks for the response. I hope I have clarified things. -- juan
