Some feedback...
On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Gaelan Steele <[email protected]> wrote:
> I create this proposal:
>
> $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>
> Title: $$$
> Author: Gaelan
> AI: 3.1
Having an AI greater than 3 isn't necessary, since proposals with
power 3 are omnipotent. I think some have said that a proposal that
creates or alters rules with power above 3 "should" have a
correspondingly greater AI, but as far as I know, nobody's going to
vote unfavorably because you used the "wrong" AI.
> Create the power-3.1 rule “$$$":
I'd prefer to have it at power 3 (or preferably even less). Powers
greater than 3 seem to be pretty much reserved for rules that have
some good reason for needing it.
> The Bankor is an office, responsible for tracking $$$. Gaelan is the initial
> Bankor, and must retain this office for at least 30 days.
Might be a good idea to replace "must" with "SHALL"; otherwise, it's
not clear whether or not it's POSSIBLE for someone else to take the
office.
> $$$ is a entity switch, tracked by the Bankor in eir weekly report, with
> possible values being all real, rational, non-negative numbers.
Technically the word "real" here is redundant, as all rational numbers
are real numbers.
I'd restrict this to multiples of 0.0001 or something like that,
though, so that people can't do super annoying things like "For each
of the following 20 players, I transfer
37065863278025181/93906310726255300 of my $$$ (out of that remaining
after all previous transfers) to that player."
> [This being an entity switch means that rules can hold money. This allows
> rules to act as “banks” holding money used in their operation.
I'd say it's not completely clear that the paragraphs in brackets are
not supposed to become part of the rule. That's obviously the
*intention*, but when your proposal is interpreted literally, there's
no such indication.
> For the first 30 days after this rule is first enacted, the first player
> during
> a UTC day to, by announcement, claim the day’s $$$, causing them to gain 50
> $$$.
> Claiming a day’s $$$ CANNOT be automated.
The first sentence is syntactically malformed. Also, what does "CANNOT
be automated", exactly? Is it an assertion that if someone attempts to
write software to send these messages automatically, then the software
will not work properly? Does it mean that, contrary to the previous
sentence, an automated announcement doesn't count as a claim? Or maybe
it does count as a claim, but doesn't result in a gain of $$$?
> No entity other with power less than this rule may cause any entity to gain or
> lose $$$ without another entity losing or gaining (respectively) an equal
> amount
> of $$$. Rules SHOULD, instead of simply having a higher power than this rule,
> give out money from a “bank” entity.
I would just phrase this as "It is IMPOSSIBLE for the total of all $$$
switches to change except as explicitly permitted by this rule."
> Any player may cause this rule to amend the ruleset, replacing all instances
> of
> ‘$$$’ with the text they specify. They may not do so if this has already been
> done in the last 30 days. It is ILLEGAL to refer to $$$ by any name other than
> one it has had in the past hour.
We did that for the Interchangeable Associate Director of Personnel.
It's hard to do this mechanic in a way that's impossible to scam.
("Anyone can replace all instances of '$$$' with the text they
specify" is very much possible to scam.)
> If players are not entities [I can’t remember], amend the rule ‘$$$’ to
> replace
> all instances of ‘entity’ with ‘entity or player’.
I think we generally interpret "entity" as being the total noun,
having the widest possible extension.
—the Warrigal
