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.) -- ais523
