The contemplated update to the #trilema voice model

Wednesday, 11 December, Year 11 d.Tr. | Author: Mircea Popescu

The way this works currently is that deedbot, the bot of record on #trilema, gets a special list dumped into it periodically, which it pretends to ratei. Subsequently it maintains a list of all the people who have been ratedii by the people on the listiii, and permits them to self-voice (through the !!up mechanism) permanently and to voice others (through the !!up <name> mechanism) for half-hour intervals.

The problems with this state of development are the bot-ratings fiction, the requirement for periodic handcranking thereby incumbent, and the relative stiffness translating conceptual insufficiency (there's no ready concept of "other castles" available in such design, for instance).

A draft proposal to upgrade the design to better handle the growing needs of the growing republic was very well received at the time, but subsequently amended in some details through discussion, and very sumarily presented originally to begin with, such that a proper article available for reference seems indeed worth the bother.

In the new model, deedbot would

  1. Maintain a list of channels and their owners (either hand-crankediv or else automatically following the deed castle establishing mechanism).
  2. Maintain a per-channel list of nicks the owner has rated 9 (which would be that channel's l1).
  3. Maintain a list of nicks that at least one nick in #trilema's l1 rated as 2 or above while none rated negative (which list would constitute #trilema's l2v).
  4. Maintain a per-channel list of nicks that at least one nick in that channel's l1 rated as 1 or abovevi while the sum ratings from that channel's l2 is not negative (which list would constitute that channel's l2).
  5. Permit each channel's l2 self-voice and voice others as per extant procedures.
  6. In the exceptional case of #trilema, maintain a listvii of runoff channels and a list of the currently set bans ; upon an unvoiced nick idling in excess of an hour in any given day removing the oldest set ban if the ban list is full and adding a /mode #trilema +b nick!username@host $#channel, picking one channel off the list randomly.

All this of course without prejudice to all the other, numerous deedbot functions.

In principle #5 above could be extended to other channels ; but it seems to me by the time such is necessary, plenty of other items will have probably moved, so there's little need to worry about it now.

Comments welcome, especially from they involved in all this madness.

———
  1. This "rating" by a bot being, obviously, a fiction. []
  2. The so-called L2. []
  3. The L1, or "lordship". []
  4. This making a perfect juncture upon whcih to attach a fee, coincidentally. []
  5. For clarity, let it be plainly said that indeed each set includes all the previous -- while the existence of a l1 is predicated on the existence of an owner, the l1 does include that owner ; while the existence of a l2 is predicated on the existence of a l1, the l2 does include that l1. It's not likely this inclusion will receive much focus in discussion, seeing how each category is more interesting for the narrow than for the wide, but nevertheless it's there. []
  6. At some point I was contemplating allowing users to set their own cutoff values here, but upon meditation it became obvious this is the wrong sort of complexity. []
  7. Hand cranked again ; currently consisting of #ossasepia and #trilema-hanbot . []
Category: Bitcoin
Comments feed : RSS 2.0. Leave your own comment below, or send a trackback.

5 Responses

  1. I am confused at 3: is that all about #trilema (ie is "that channel's l1" meant to be #trilema's l1 or is this mixing trilema's l1 with other chans' l1?

  2. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    2
    Mircea Popescu 
    Wednesday, 11 December 2019

    I shortened it, is it better ?

  3. Better indeed! Thank you.

  4. Yeah, I particularly like item #6. I do expect there could be some exceptional cases though where someone could be voiced in #trilema and speak a while, then need to pause before speaking again (as in say some media visitor/old-timer contacted via email), wherein the hour's limit resulting in an actual ban for #trilema could be a hindrance to all. So: possibly an hour's not long enough. I propose a day, or something closer to it. Will catch actual lurkers, less likely to catch edgecases and require runaround administering thereby.

  5. Mircea Popescu`s avatar
    5
    Mircea Popescu 
    Sunday, 15 December 2019

    But look at it : person joins, is voiced. Now what ? If he leaves the machine, and it loses power / connectivity, they'll be disconnected, so no ban -- it only applies if they stay connected but not voiced. If they get unvoiced, they can just disconnect. If they leave during their half hour window, after being voiced, they're just being disrespectful, I don't care what "aunt came to visit" bs ; but that notwithstanding it takes three occurences in a day at a minimum to make the cut, because two almost-half hours don't make an hour. And, of course, in any case I can just remove a ban by issuing the equivalent oneliner, /mode -b whatever.

    The problem with making it as long as a day is that it expands the watching trinque has to do. You understand, to establish something like "has been X for Y time" computers poll periodically : is it X ? every Y/k intervals. Just like digitized music works, if you sample at 44KHz, you get 44`000 note states (up ? down ?) each second. If you do it at 44MHz you get... 44`000`000 note states. This makes the difference between 44 Kbits and 44 Mbits per second, which is why nobody samples at 44 MHz, which is why the whole flac / "lossless" compression's less lossless than the "audiophiles" care to understand.

Add your cents! »
    If this is your first comment, it will wait to be approved. This usually takes a few hours. Subsequent comments are not delayed.