Things are going to get weird for you when we have mechanisms to push values back into your emotions.

Nothing says that you can’t DM me sad stories before asking me how I’m feeling as it is.

I think this is a great idea and I’m FOR it, but it also means that I’ll be rather critical of linking this algorithm to anything that can lead to material advantage in the game so let’s see what happens 👀

Please note that I don’t think “Ensure that the forecast output of this function is up to date as per this rule, then return the forecast output” actually works the way I think you want it to work.

The forecast output is defined as “which is the next output that the Function should return if used”

To me, that means the whole “Return forecast output” doesn’t actually do anything. You return the forecast output to determine the outcome, then you run the method. Which also returns something, but I don’t think that return value does anything…

Do you not think that the ‘as per this rule’ adequately points to the ‘any Researcher may update the Forecast Output field of their entry to reflect the most recent available information’ provision of this proposal?

You return the forecast output to determine the outcome, then you run the method.

I don’t think that this is correct - you just use the method, and if the method allows you to return the outcome then you do as part of the auspices of the method, not as a separate process…

Seems like at best a contradiction in the rules, which state that the forecast output is “the next output that the Function should return if used”, but then the function can actually return something else.

Probably work a clarificatory fix, but that’s likely outside the scope of this proposal

But the “should” in that description probably protects us from a serious issue while a patch is pending

I’m seeing a major ambiguity here which might need a bit of a rewrite. It’s saying to ensure the forecast of this function is up to date as per this rule, but it’s not really defining what that actually means. Is it up to date if we just check the most recent emotion irrespective of whether there’s a newer post that isn’t responded to yet? Or do we wait for a response to the newest post?
Both work equally.

good meme

Seems to give Josh a gameplay advantage so while this could be fun, I’d rather not give another researcher that much power

@Clucky I need *something* to counterbalance my maths-blindness

as you counterbalance my maths-advantage & this is only predeterminable by one player & this don’t work

I love the concept but we should rewrite the ambiguity as stated by SingularByte.

doesnt take into account my feelings

I suppose we can always change the Emotion Operator if this gets passed…

mostly because this proposal is funny.  Whether or not it gets attached to any mechanical benefits is up to all of you :P.