Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Housekeeping (contains proposal)
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:35 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > On 12/5/19 10:14 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > Can we not try to ratify rulesets the day they're published? Ratifying > > the ruleset is a big deal because it takes a long time to verify that > > it's correct, has had no scams inserted by the Rulekeepor, etc., so > > it's normally better to pick a ruleset from a few weeks or months ago > > if a ratification is needed. > > > > Especially in the case of the Rules, it's often not a disaster to > > discover you were wrong all along and recalculate, compared to the > > potential disaster of discovering you were wrong all along but are > > unable to recalculate. > > > > -- ais523 > > > Fair enough. I withdraw my most recently submitted proposal. > > I wasn't trying to run a scam here, which is why I've tried to make it > as easy as possible to audit my work. I was just thinking that now might > be a good time given that there hasn't been an SLR published in a little > less than 2 months. That actually makes it an unusually bad time. If there have been a lot of changes, there’s been less time to review them. We generally try to do it when things have been at least reasonably stable and there’s been plenty of time since the ruleset being ratified. Also, it doesn't really need to be done more often than about once a year. Doing it more rarely is beneficial because it allows for a *really really* thorough examination. For the ruleset this makes sense, because rules change relatively slowly and getting them into an incorrect state could seriously mess up the game, so it's considered preferable to perhaps have incorrect reports than to have a chance of breaking something. Of course, if we let the ruleset diverge too far from what we think it is, it could get to the point where that discrepancy might start causing truly critical problems as well, so occasional ratifications are essentially a necessary evil. -Aris > >
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [deputy-Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
On 12/5/19 10:13 PM, Aris Merchant wrote: There are a lot of paragraphs using indentation instead of the customary blank lines. Which is probably completely legal, but still... Greetings, Ørjan. Dammit, it looks like my email client did something insane. And no, it wouldn't be legal since rules are collections of text, not paragraphs. May I direct your attention to Rule 2429, "Bleach"? -Aris I'd forgotten about that, thanks. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: BUS: Housekeeping (contains proposal)
On Thu, 2019-12-05 at 22:05 -0500, Jason Cobb wrote: > I submit the following proposal: > > Title: SLR Ratification [snip] > The text of the weekly report published on 6 December 2019 and > available at [0] is a true and accurate description of the ruleset. Can we not try to ratify rulesets the day they're published? Ratifying the ruleset is a big deal because it takes a long time to verify that it's correct, has had no scams inserted by the Rulekeepor, etc., so it's normally better to pick a ruleset from a few weeks or months ago if a ratification is needed. Especially in the case of the Rules, it's often not a disaster to discover you were wrong all along and recalculate, compared to the potential disaster of discovering you were wrong all along but are unable to recalculate. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [deputy-Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, Dec 5, 2019 at 7:10 PM Jason Cobb wrote: > > On 12/5/19 9:56 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > >> [This is accurate to the best of my knowledge. It is very likely that > >> I have missed or messed up something. You can see the changes from > >> Trigon's last SLR at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/tree/dec5.] > >> > >> I deputise for Rulekeepor to publish the following weekly report: > > > > There are a lot of paragraphs using indentation instead of the > > customary blank lines. Which is probably completely legal, but still... > > > > Greetings, > > Ørjan. > > > Dammit, it looks like my email client did something insane. And no, it > wouldn't be legal since rules are collections of text, not paragraphs. > May I direct your attention to Rule 2429, "Bleach"? -Aris
Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [deputy-Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
On 12/5/19 9:56 PM, Ørjan Johansen wrote: [This is accurate to the best of my knowledge. It is very likely that I have missed or messed up something. You can see the changes from Trigon's last SLR at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/tree/dec5.] I deputise for Rulekeepor to publish the following weekly report: There are a lot of paragraphs using indentation instead of the customary blank lines. Which is probably completely legal, but still... Greetings, Ørjan. Dammit, it looks like my email client did something insane. And no, it wouldn't be legal since rules are collections of text, not paragraphs. -- Jason Cobb
DIS: Re: OFF: [deputy-Rulekeepor] Short Logical Ruleset
On Thu, 5 Dec 2019, Jason Cobb wrote: [This is accurate to the best of my knowledge. It is very likely that I have missed or messed up something. You can see the changes from Trigon's last SLR at https://github.com/AgoraNomic/ruleset/tree/dec5.] I deputise for Rulekeepor to publish the following weekly report: There are a lot of paragraphs using indentation instead of the customary blank lines. Which is probably completely legal, but still... Greetings, Ørjan.
