Thursday, May 23, 2024

Proposal: Satisfactory

Popular, 5-0. Enacted by JonathanDark.

Adminned at 24 May 2024 14:31:11 UTC

If https://blognomic.com/archive/collecting_ones_notes and https://blognomic.com/archive/finding_the_right_words and https://blognomic.com/archive/fractured_fairy_tales all do not pass, this proposal does nothing

In “Elements” replace “An Element is a word in vernacular English.” with

Elements have a single Type which may be Word or Category. Elements with type Word must be a word in vernacular English and are represented simply by that word. Elements with type Category are the name of Category, and are represented by the string “A/an [the category name]”

Add a subrule to “Fragments” called “Satisfaction”

A sentences Satisfies an Element of type Word if it contains that Word.

A sentences Satisfies an Element of type Category if it contains the Name of an entry in that Category.

In “Fragments” replace “and among those words must be all of the Elements in the Current Elements” with “and must Satisfy all of the Elements in the Current Elements”

Comments

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

23-05-2024 03:59:21 UTC

Link fail at the start.

“and must satisfy all of the Elements in the Current Elements”

Might want to capitalize “satisfy” to indicate that it’s the official dynastic term.

Clucky: he/him

23-05-2024 04:06:45 UTC

I have no idea why that second link is busted

GloopyGhost:

23-05-2024 06:27:55 UTC

“A sentences Satisfies” probably should not be plural.

Juniper.ohyegods: she/her

23-05-2024 06:31:48 UTC

Are you unidling?

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

23-05-2024 12:48:44 UTC

It’s ok for GloopyGhost to comment without unidling. It’s just that they can’t take any actual actions like dynastic actions, posting proposals, or voting.

4st:

23-05-2024 22:39:58 UTC

for I think this is a good idea, generalizing Elements? It seems like sentence should be Fragment, possibly, though.

JonathanDark: Publisher he/him

23-05-2024 23:22:38 UTC

yeah, “sentence” should probably be “fragment”. I’ll add that to my patch-up list…

for

Kevan: he/him

24-05-2024 08:21:52 UTC

for “Where a Votable Matter refers to a second Votable Matter by name, it is assumed to refer to the most recently posted Votable Matter of that name which pre-dates the first Votable Matter.” does mean it’s safe to just refer to earlier proposals by name.

Darknight: he/him

24-05-2024 14:17:29 UTC

for