Thursday, March 16, 2017

Call for Judgment: Satisfaction Fix

Self Killed by Derrick

Adminned at 17 Mar 2017 16:42:04 UTC

So the current Map has different scores for each named satisfaction level rank. I disagree with that interpretation, so I’m raising a this CfJ to solve this.

Since a CfJ can be auto-failed if it doesn’t imply any change, this CfJ will involve changing the current version to this proposed version.

And so, once this CfJ is passed, then:

in “Map of the Habitat”, remove

Satisfaction Levels


Satisfied: A
Depressed: B
Down: C
Happy: D
Fulfilled: E”

Where A, B, C, D and E are whatever values they are at that moment

and add this under “Curiosity: -1”

Satisfaction Level: 3 (Down)




03-16-2017 22:24:25 UTC

I think I simply interpreted the rules incorrectly now that I have reread I thought the numbers were just numbering the list, but now I see that they have bullet points. I don’t know if I should change it back right away, since you’ve raised this CfJ though.

Oracular rufio:

03-16-2017 23:09:48 UTC

against The purpose of the numbers was so that “satisfaction level increases by 1” etc. actually means something.  Also so that the numbers correspond to meanings that make sense.  You’ve shuffled them around for no conceivable reason and now we have no unambiguous way of raising or lowering satisfaction level.

Oracular rufio:

03-16-2017 23:18:53 UTC

Also, I don’t know what you mean by “changing the current version to this proposed version.”  Are you saying this is Blognomic 2.0 and we should update to 3.0?


03-16-2017 23:21:51 UTC

against because the creator of the change I was challenging and me now both have the same view, so there is no dispute.


03-16-2017 23:25:25 UTC

against Card seems to have corrected their earlier error, so it looks like this CfJ won’t do anything except possibly duplicate a line.


03-16-2017 23:39:29 UTC

[Oracular rufio] In my initial reading I thought that the names (Down, Satisfied etc.) were each Satisfaction Level variables that a given creature had.

against Wasn’t me who reverted it, thank you for taking initiative pokes.

Oracular rufio:

03-16-2017 23:41:49 UTC

I wanted to make the names the values, but establishing which order they were in and what increasing satisfaction meant seemed error-prone when using strings.