Tuesday, October 09, 2018

Proposal: In like Flynn

Times out 4-0. Enacted by Brendan.

Adminned at 11 Oct 2018 21:19:30 UTC

Delete the sentence beginning with “If a Program’s Login is the same of characters…” from the rule “Terminals.”

Create a subrule of the rule “Terminals” called “Access” as follows:

If a Program’s Login is the same set of characters as the Input state of another Program, then the former Program has access to the latter Program.

Access is transitive: that is, if a Program A has access to a Program B, and Program B has access to Program C, then Program A has access to Program C.

A Program may change their own Input state as a Daily Action.

If a Program has access to another Program, the former Program may change the latter Program’s Output state as a Daily Action. The daily limit on this action is considered to resolve on a per-Program-pairing basis; that is, if a Program A has access to Programs B and C, then Program A may take actions to change Program B’s Output state and Program C’s output state within the same day.

Comments

derrick:

10-09-2018 19:10:19 UTC

A few observations:

access is commutative, and it does not need to be specified that it is transative, because everyone in an access group has each others keys.

access can be gained and denied by simply changing your input state as a daily action.

All actions you could currently want to do on a given day you can do in rapid succession.

The transitive properties current effect is allowing you to change your own output if you have access to a different program.

This is an interesting and possibly deep mechanic, but I think it would work better if it wasn’t commutative.

Brendan:

10-09-2018 19:37:38 UTC

[derrick] “The transitive properties current effect is allowing you to change your own output if you have access to a different program.”

That wasn’t the intention. Can you outline the scenario where this happens?

derrick:

10-09-2018 19:44:04 UTC

oh, I see. Its the login you want to match, not the input state. So your input state could be ‘qq’, my input state could be ‘Br’, and I’d have access to Brendan, because I match the login. your input is irrelevant for access, just your login. 

ok, all that stuff I said goes away.

Now, we could form an access loop if I had ‘Br’ and you had ‘de’, but that’s a very niche situation, and I’m fine with it.

Brendan:

10-09-2018 20:06:00 UTC

I think we’re on the same page. In your construction, if your Input state was ‘Br’ and mine was ‘qq’, then I would have access to you. If I changed MY input to ‘de’, then you would have access to me—so yes, access loops are still possible as long everyone involved chooses to maintain the cycle.

Kevan:

10-10-2018 15:34:22 UTC

for

derrick:

10-10-2018 15:56:48 UTC

for

ok, there is a lot of nuance here, but I’m good with it.

Trigon:

10-11-2018 05:00:58 UTC

for