Wednesday, April 09, 2014

Proposal: Up and Atom

Can’t reach quorum for at 1-4 and fails. -RaichuKFM

Adminned at 10 Apr 2014 19:07:43 UTC

Enact a new rule, “Branching”:-

Each Atom may Branch from at most one other Atom; the name of this other Atom is tracked in the GNDT column of the Branching Atom (for non-Reagent Atoms) or the Branching Atom’s entry on the wiki page “Reagents” (for Reagent Atoms). By default, an Atom does not Branch from anything.

An Atom may be Stable, Unstable or Free. If the number of Electrons on all Atoms which Branch from an Atom (the “Core”) equal the number of Electrons that the Core has, then the Core is Stable. If the number of Electrons on all Atoms that Branch from an Atom (the “Core”) exceed the number of Electrons that the Core has, then the Core is Unstable. Otherwise it is Free.

At any time, an Atom which does not Branch from another Atom may Branch from any Free Atom.

Wading in with virtually no background in chemistry.

posted by Kevan at 09 Apr 2014 14:47:42 UTC Comments (7)

Comments

benzene:

09-04-2014 17:16:43 UTC

So it seems like branching is one directional, i.e., if I branch you, you don’t necessarily branch me. This just seems weird to me. I’d prefer something with bonding involving sharing electrons, but maybe I’m trying to be too realistic…  against

Kevan: he/him

09-04-2014 19:31:27 UTC

The tracked data is one directional, but we can always define “bonding” as “being on either end of a branch” if we need to.

This is vaguely meant to simulate shared electrons (if you have 4 Electrons, an Atom with 3 Electrons and another with 1 can branch from you, and then nothing else can branch from you) but it doesn’t extend much beyond that, I didn’t want to overcomplicate it.

pizzashark:

09-04-2014 20:53:51 UTC

I think it would be better to have something that relies on the atoms’ valence electrons or charges, similar to covalent or ionic bonding. against

IceFromHell:

09-04-2014 21:22:07 UTC

imperial

Larrytheturtle:

11-04-2014 01:42:15 UTC

against

Larrytheturtle:

11-04-2014 01:44:56 UTC

against When did we change the rules for failing proposals? It used to be that if it couldn’t reach quorum it was able to be failed but now it is different. Under the old rules this could be failed now but instead we have to wait for one more vote. I could be wrong but that is how I remembered it. Also, if so, why did we change it exactly?

RaichuKFM: she/her

11-04-2014 02:04:28 UTC

Um, what? The number of Atoms not voting against it is four- Kevan, Rodney, Justice, and myself -which is less than quorum, currently five. Wording might have changed at some point, I don’t know, but you can still fail a Proposal if it can’t reach quorum FOR. Like so.