Sunday, March 05, 2023

Proposal: Brown Paper Package Manager [Appendix]

Timed out 5 votes to 2, requires quorum to amend the Appendix. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 07 Mar 2023 15:15:31 UTC

Add a new entry entitled “String” to the Appendix Keywords under the “Other” heading as follows:

A gameplay variable being defined as a “string” or a “text string” means that variable can hold a text value (being a mix of alphanumeric characters, punctuation, and spaces) of any length, unless more specifically defined by another rule.

Comments

SingularByte: he/him

05-03-2023 15:24:59 UTC

I’d recommend having wording to let you overrule the unlimited length portion of the definition.

If a dynastic rule says a string can only be (for example) 10 characters, then by the rule Keywords, the 10 character limit would be superseded by the part of the keyword that says “of any length”.

Brendan: he/him

05-03-2023 15:31:38 UTC

Amended, thank you. The number of uses of “unless otherwise specified” in the Appendix is perhaps a hint that the Precedence rules could use a revision.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-03-2023 15:51:26 UTC

Is this really needed?

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

05-03-2023 17:39:36 UTC

Is $ an alphanumeric character?

Brendan: he/him

05-03-2023 19:35:11 UTC

[Trapdoorspyder] I think currency symbols fall under the heading of punctuation, but I’m willing to hear arguments to the contrary. Would “a mix of text characters, punctuation, and spaces” be preferable?

[Josh] This is a fascinating question from someone who very recently made an argument for bringing back core rules scams. I know what a string in our current context is, as do most people who have programmed computers, but it’s hardly the first definition that comes up if you haven’t.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-03-2023 20:44:01 UTC

@Brendan I haven’t *proposed* to bring core rule scans back yet, but, look, adding an appendix item is neither here nor there in that regard. I think contextually it would be hard to argue (or pass a CfJ) that that variable is invalid because it meant a length of yarn, actually; it’s hard to see another meaning that could actually get traction.

SingularByte: he/him

05-03-2023 20:58:56 UTC

If there was anyone recently that was questioning what a string is, I could see this as being more necessary. As it is, I see it as neither especially helpful nor harmful.

for  but I’m very much neutral on the matter. (I’d vote DEF, but honestly it always feels weird doing that for non-dynastic proposals.)

Josh: Observer he/they

05-03-2023 21:03:46 UTC

against just purely on the principle that fewer ruleset words is better

Lulu: she/her

05-03-2023 21:04:50 UTC

against per Josh

Brendan: he/him

05-03-2023 22:29:21 UTC

I don’t expect to change anyone’s vote, but just to be clearer about my original intent: I’m not actually imagining a specific scam and I do generally agree that a shorter ruleset is better. But there’s a reason the ruleset defines what a week means, and it’s not just because of scams, it’s to make sure we’re all on the same page. The player base of BlogNomic is not fixed; I don’t think we should make the game’s appeal any narrower than we have to; and, for those reasons, I don’t think that building game mechanics on top of a highly contextual and background-dependent definition that we never spell out is an ideal practice.

Josh: Observer he/they

05-03-2023 22:42:01 UTC

It’s a fair point, and I am open to changing my vote. I just can’t see what any other definition of “string” that could pass a CfJ could be, and an wary of ending up on the path where we have to define every term we use (and, in doing so, undermine the principle that the standard English definition of a term is sovereign). What do we think are the likely alternatives?

Trapdoorspyder: he/him

06-03-2023 02:25:52 UTC

for

Chiiika: she/her

06-03-2023 06:37:09 UTC

for

Raven1207: he/they

06-03-2023 07:30:28 UTC

for

Kevan: he/him

06-03-2023 09:24:40 UTC

against “To make sure we’re all on the same page” is a valid concern. It’s useful to define “week” for this reason, because there’s room for players to have different interpretations of when a week starts and ends. But I can’t see that the same applies to strings. If a player doesn’t know what a string is, a dictionary definition will serve them as well as an appendix one. (They’d likely also have to look up “alphanumeric”.)

It’s also unclear what “punctuation” is meant to include and exclude here: are other other typographical symbols like tildes and percentage signs allowed? Are emoji definitely out?