Sunday, April 30, 2023

Proposal: Construction Site Cleanup

Timed out 2 votes to 3. Failed by Kevan.

Adminned at 02 May 2023 08:39:43 UTC

Remove every instance of “in the Building” from the Ruleset, maintaining whitespaces according to normal English conventions.

Remove every instance of “of the Building” from the Ruleset, maintaining whitespaces according to normal English conventions.

In The Building, replace

The Building consists of an ordered collection of Levels arranged vertically, each of which contains a left-to-right ordered collection of exactly three Blocks (defaulting to three Empty Blocks). The Building also has a Building Number, which defaults to 0, and a Building Stability, which is an integer that defaults to 500. The Building is said be in critical condition if the Building Stability is less than or equal to 100.

with

The Levels of the Building is a publicly tracked and ordered collection of Levels, defaulting to 6 Levels. A Level is an ordered collection of Blocks, defaulting to 3 Blocks. The Levels of the Building is tracked as a table, with each row representing a Level, ordered bottom-up, and the cells in each row representing the Blocks of each Level, ordered left-to-right. Levels are assumed to belong to the Levels of the Building unless otherwise specified. Blocks are assumed to belong to a Level unless otherwise specified.

The Building Number is a publicly tracked non-negative integer, defaulting to 0. The Building Stability is a publicly tracked integer, which may be negative, defaulting to 500. We say the Building is in Critical Condition if the Building Stability is less than or equal to 100.

Cleaning up the Ruleset and addressing a few of my concerns before the potential Endgame Lockdown. I will Propose a series of short Proposals each related a minor part of the Ruleset to improve clarity and conciseness.

Comments

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

30-04-2023 06:34:55 UTC

I find it interesting that you want to remove the phrase “of the Building” even though you use it multiple times in your replacement text.

If your Proposal was enacted exactly as written, here’s what your replacement text would look like:

The Levels is a publicly tracked and ordered collection of Levels, defaulting to 6 Levels. A Level is an ordered collection of Blocks, defaulting to 3 Blocks. The Levels is tracked as a table, with each row representing a Level, ordered bottom-up, and the cells in each row representing the Blocks of each Level, ordered left-to-right. Levels are assumed to belong to the Levels unless otherwise specified. Blocks are assumed to belong to a Level unless otherwise specified.

Taiga: he/him

30-04-2023 06:42:37 UTC

Good call, I didn’t think of that. I originally put it there for coherence, in order to echo the

Levels are assumed to belong to the Levels of the Building unless otherwise specified. Blocks are assumed to belong to a Level unless otherwise specified.

part of the Proposal.

I have now moved it to the very front.

Brendan: he/him

30-04-2023 12:17:59 UTC

for

Josh: he/they

30-04-2023 13:45:15 UTC

against I’m not sure about the “we say” language in the last paragraph

Kevan: he/him

30-04-2023 13:49:47 UTC

[Taiga] What are your actual concerns that this is addressing?

Taiga: he/him

30-04-2023 14:10:10 UTC

[Josh] That is a bad habit of mine when writing mathematical texts. I think it shouldn’t cause too much problems though. If many people disagree, I’ll make another Proposal with better language choices (the current one seems fine).

[Kevan] Good question. I should’ve made that more explicit in my flavour text. It’s mostly trivial matters, and some are not even concerns: To reduce the redundancy of language; To explicitly state a value can negative as per the recent discussion; To define more clearly how the Building is represented; Stating “publicly tracked” explicitly because I’ve noticed that we’ve be doing it for other tracked variables.

Josh: he/they

30-04-2023 15:07:29 UTC

...oh, crap. The whole dynasty is built on orphan variables.

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

30-04-2023 16:22:48 UTC

against Sorry, Taiga, I think we have to fail this due to the orphan variables

Taiga: he/him

30-04-2023 21:40:12 UTC

I don’t see how orphan variables are going to affect my Proposal.

Kevan: he/him

01-05-2023 21:38:41 UTC

against Per Welcome to the Orphanage, there’s now too much admin advantage in reactivating the orphaned variables.