Tuesday, June 11, 2013

Proposal: Proofs

Vetoed. — Quirck

Adminned at 11 Jun 2013 09:41:46 UTC

Create, and blank, a wiki page entitled “Proofs”, with three sections “Established Proofs”, “Proofs under Deliberation”, and “Rejected Proofs”.

If the rule “Truth” exists, enact a subrule entitled “Proofs”:

At any time, any Atom may submit a proof by creating a story post entitled “Proofs”, and posting their proof both in the body of the post and on the wiki entitled “Proofs” in the “Proofs under Deliberation” section. An atom may have, at most 2 Proofs under deliberation at a time. After a Proof post has been posted, it goes under deliberation. During the deliberation period, any Atom may dissent with the proof by responding in the comments with against or may agree with the proof by responding in the comments with for . All dissenters must provide a logical argument for what logic is faulty in the proof. If at any point there is a quorum of votes FOR a Proof and there are no AGAINST votes in the comments, any Atom may move the proof into the “Established Proofs” section of the wiki and the Proof is no longer under deliberation. If there are any AGAINST votes and 48 hours have passed since the proposal of the Proof, it is up to the discretion of any Atom except the one who proposed the Proof to decide whether the arguments of the dissenters have merit. If the dissenters have successfully proven a fault in the proof, the Proof is moved to the “Rejected Proofs” section of the wiki, otherwise it is moved to the “Established Proofs” section. In either case, the Proof is no longer under deliberation. If an Atom realizes the flaw in their own Proof, they should vote AGAINST it in the comments. If an author a proof has voted in this way, any Atom may move the Proof into the “Rejected Proofs” section of the wiki. This Proof is no longer under deliberation.

Sorry that this is a little long. I keep wanting to write, “Once per time advancement”. I think that a mechanic to reward people for making proofs that are accepted, punish them for making proofs that are rejected, and allowing them to cut their losses by realizing the error of their own proof would be useful. Also, a mechanic to re-examine proofs later on in the game could also be good. Also, would it be possible to have a new category entitled Proofs, or do we just have to make do with Story Posts?

posted by kikar at 11 Jun 2013 04:36:45 UTC Comments (4)

Comments

Skju:

11-06-2013 05:26:17 UTC

veto The way you have it, a proof doesn’t have to be actually valid to be established. That’s okay, except that it’s up to the discretion of a single, arbitrary Atom. I think it would be best to establish a new category, which we can do, that is more like Proposals.

kikar:

11-06-2013 05:31:07 UTC

I was modeling this off of Proposals. I only allowed discretion in the case of dissent because I wanted to make sure that if a proof were right it couldn’t be rejected by the masses. I tried to root the discretion on the logical underpinnings of the arguments. Any suggestions on how to improve this rule?

Fool:

11-06-2013 05:40:15 UTC

Maybe just use the existing CFJ mechanism to resolve proof disputes? Presumably this already works for other disputes (or does it? hey, I’m new here…)

Skju:

11-06-2013 14:22:08 UTC

People can lie (e.g. dissent) for their own motives.

Fool, that is what CFJs are for, but they’re usually for more important matters, and I don’t think we like to use them more than necessary.