Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

I just set up an account for Nomic: PubliusScriboniusScholasticus, could I get that added. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:57 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Yup. I’ve got something pretty close to the SLR generating from YAML files; > that’ll be on GitHub soon as wel

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

Yes. I intend to deputize as soon as the SLR becomes overdue (is it? I thought G. said it wasn’t, but I thought it was). > On May 17, 2017, at 7:59 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On May 17, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: >> >> Yup. I’ve got something pretty close to the SLR generati

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

> On May 17, 2017, at 10:57 PM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Yup. I’ve got something pretty close to the SLR generating from YAML files; > that’ll be on GitHub soon as well. I registered the AgoraNomic organization, > and am happy to give any other officials access. I request access (using my Git

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

Yup. I’ve got something pretty close to the SLR generating from YAML files; that’ll be on GitHub soon as well. I registered the AgoraNomic organization, and am happy to give any other officials access. Gaelan > On May 17, 2017, at 6:19 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > >> On May 17, 2017, at 12:41

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

> On May 17, 2017, at 12:41 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > > Very well. I retract my proposal, replacing it with an informal request that > if someone has a machine-readable record they use to generate their report, > they publish it. We shouldn’t expect that to be 100% accurate 100% of the > tim

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

I concur with o and in my thoughts, the automation would always conform to the game, not the other way around. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 11:10 PM, Owen Jacobson wrote: > > On May 16, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > An issue I see is things like fluid

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On May 16, 2017, at 12:46 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > An issue I see is things like fluidity of translation; it would require that > we > be VERY strict on things like nicknames. May I recommend reading Allison Parrish’s “Programming is Forgetting”

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

What is the standard way to implement a subgame? Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 7:29 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > On Tue, 16 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > >> I've long thought that if an action has a sufficiently well-defined >> format, we should define a machine-rea

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 16 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: I've long thought that if an action has a sufficiently well-defined format, we should define a machine-readable format for it and have that action taken by posting that machine-readable string to a PF, rather than by announcement; this is mostly to make it

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

I would be very interested in designing what could begin as a sub-game and depending on how we like it, it may become a major part around this idea. I will work on a proposal on this and a would definitely run for this office. Publius Scribonius Scholasticus On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 2:23 PM,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 11:17 -0700, Aris Merchant wrote: > I'm a tad worried that this idea is getting close to an entirely > automated system. Anything we come up with has to be opt in only, with > no penalty for not joining. It can't even become a standard > expectation, otherwise we may go the wa

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 9:46 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Tue, 16 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: >> On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > That said, if an officer figures out a way for some transactions to be >> > truly >> > automated (e.g. enter a transaction on a website an

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 16 May 2017, Gaelan Steele wrote: > What are the rules for determining the source of a message? Could we have > a web-based form for transferring currency that simultaneously updated the > records and sent an email to the PF "in the name of" whoever was doing the > transferring? If a

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:54 AM, Quazie wrote: > It'd be better if a machine did it so everyone can play. > > On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:50 AM Nic Evans wrote: >> >> On 05/16/2017 11:53 AM, Alex Smith wrote: >> > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:46 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> An issue I see is thing

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

It'd be better if a machine did it so everyone can play. On Tue, May 16, 2017 at 10:50 AM Nic Evans wrote: > On 05/16/2017 11:53 AM, Alex Smith wrote: > > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:46 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > >> An issue I see is things like fluidity of translation; it would require > that we

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On 05/16/2017 11:53 AM, Alex Smith wrote: On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:46 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: An issue I see is things like fluidity of translation; it would require that we be VERY strict on things like nicknames. If someone entered something like that but left the period off my nickname (G

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

I don't think "machine readable" needs to be defined any more clearly for now—it's a SHOULD, so if you wanted to ignore the rule you'd be perfectly fine anyway. What are the rules for determining the source of a message? Could we have a web-based form for transferring currency that simultaneous

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:46 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > An issue I see is things like fluidity of translation; it would require that > we > be VERY strict on things like nicknames.  If someone entered something like > that > but left the period off my nickname (G instead of G.), it would be clear

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 16 May 2017, Alex Smith wrote: > On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > That said, if an officer figures out a way for some transactions to be truly > > automated (e.g. enter a transaction on a website and it gets logged and sent > > to the PF), I'm all for that. > > I

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Tue, 2017-05-16 at 09:14 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > That said, if an officer figures out a way for some transactions to be truly > automated (e.g. enter a transaction on a website and it gets logged and sent > to the PF), I'm all for that. I've long thought that if an action has a sufficiently

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On Mon, 15 May 2017, Owen Jacobson wrote: > Append the following text to Rule 2143: > > In addition, officers SHOULD provide their reports in a > machine-readable format. This machine-readable report > SHOULD be available on the World Wide Web, and officers SHOULD > pub

DIS: Re: BUS: [Proposal] Machine-Readable Reports

On May 15, 2017, at 3:06 AM, Gaelan Steele wrote: > I create the following proposal: > > Title: Machine-Readable Reports > AI: 1 > > Append the following text to Rule 2143: > In addition, officers SHOULD provide their reports in a machine-readable > format. This machine-readable report SHOULD