On Tue, Jun 9, 2020 at 5:32 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > Sorry it's taken so long to get back to this thread. I kind of forgot > about this for a bit there. > > On 2020-06-03 18:59, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > agora-discussion wrote: > > On Wed, Jun 3, 2020 at 8:48 PM Reuben Staley via agora-discussion > > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >> > >> On 2020-06-03 17:00, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus via > >> agora-discussion wrote: > >>> On Jun 3, 2020, at 18:48, Reuben Staley via agora-discussion > >>> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > >>>> Parties to this contract should signal their own messages. They > >>>> should also, if a message that should be signaled lacks signaling, > >>>> reply to that message, signaling their own message and stating that > >>>> the quoted message contains actions that should be signaled. > >>> I’m not sure how I feel about this clause. I apologize for not raising > >>> this at an earlier draft, but I wonder whether this will actually help or > >>> just serve to make the mailing list busier. I think if it becomes near > >>> universal, this will be good because the collective impact will be > >>> minimally busying and will allow everyone to read fewer messages if they > >>> don’t want to; otherwise, I think it will just crowd the mailing list. > >> > >> I'm sorry, I don't know if I follow this logic here. Which section do > >> you have qualms about? The "signaling their own messages" or the > >> "signaling for other's messages" part? > > > > Sorry, this is about the "signaling for other's messages" part. > > I was unsure about the inclusion of this clause in the original message > because it will inevitably bring a lot more traffic. I think it's the > right call though. If we only ask that players signal their own > messages, then life will only be marginally easier for officers. If we > help other players by signaling their messages, though, then life gets > easier even faster. > > I think it also provides a very nice opportunity for teaching by > example. When someone fails to signal, they'll see someone signal for > them and I think they'll remember that for the next time they do that > action and that will lead to more people signaling by themselves. Over > time, additional traffic caused by this mechanic will slow as we all > become a more considerate. > > Then again, that might just be my hopeful side speaking. > > TO EVERYONE: If you're reading this, I'd like you to pitch in and tell > me what you think. The quotes above should give a context about the > mechanic in question. > > >>>> A list of actions that should be so signaled and the appropriate > >>>> signals is included below, sorted by which office they are most > >>>> pertinent to the duties of. If the specified action signal is already > >>>> included in the subject of the message, players should signal the > >>>> office instead. > >>> I’m confused by this. This seems to imply that both the action and the > >>> office should be signaled. > >> > >> The intention was that if the subject line is "Quangor Election", > >> players don't need to say something redundant like "[Election] Quangor > >> Election" because that would be redundant; instead they would say > >> "[Attn: ADoP] Quangor Election". I would find this more intuitive, but I > >> am open to changing it a bit. > > > > Okay, that wasn't clear to me. Maybe change it to: "If the specified > > action signal is otherwise included in the subject of the message, > > players should signal the office instead." This makes it clear that > > it's about inclusion for reasons other than the contract. > > > >> > >>> Maybe also include something for contracts? > >> > >> Apart from what's already in the Notary section? > > > > I meant for internal contract operations, such as messages to be > > processed by the President of the Dragon or the Exchange Master. > > I see. I think that would be classified as the second point in the "All > Offices" section that says > > * Situations not enumerated above that require special attention > from an Officer: signal that Officer > > Although I suppose that I could add another point for just > contract-defined officers that states something specifically if you > think that'd be valuable.
I do think that would be valuable since that's not included in the common definition of officers. > > >>>> 2. Respecting Drafts: the act of not performing actions that would cause > >>>> an officer to be required to update already-published drafts. > >>> > >>> What about things like the Promotor’s report where back-dating is > >>> permissible? It seems that this would have little force in that regard. > >> > >> Ironically, the Promotor's report was the inspiration to start this, > >> before Aris mentioned that e could backdate eir reports. I'm open to > >> suggestions on this point. It could just say "except when back-dating is > >> permissible" I guess. > > > > I was actually saying this with the opposite intent. As I read it now, > > the Promotor's ability to back-date means that e is never required to > > update an already-published draft. > > So do you think this section is unnecessary? If not, how would you fix > it? I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you want me to do here. I didn't really have a specific solution in mind. I'm just not sure what this does because of its phrasing, but I'm not sure if it's a problem. If it is, I think the best idea would be to have a vague clause that gets the idea across without being too specific. > > -- > Trigon I'm sorry if this feels nitpicky, but I really like the idea and am interested in it, in case that wasn't clear.
