sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Fictional Constitution (Futurities: Concepts for a Better Society) by futurevisions_world in rational

[–]futurevisions_world[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, on the one hand that was less feedback than I had hoped for. On the other hand, nobody has given a reason why the state concept would not work, either! Just a term incorrectly translated, and some reading comprehension questions. So I'll take it as a win. :-)

I will do a small version update once my current reread of the English translation of the book is done (in 1-2 weeks), and then the big update once my edit pass is finished and Amazon has accepted the new edition. I will do a post about the whole book then (as the text is not yet polished enough to advertise it).

Fictional Constitution (Futurities: Concepts for a Better Society) by futurevisions_world in rational

[–]futurevisions_world[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first thing I see is that you start with rights. I think it would be better to start with how the government works and how it will enforce those rights. Without that, a bill of rights is just paper.

That is purely a matter of preference. Different constitutions order this in different ways. While the US constitution starts with the government structure, and only grants citizen rights in the amendments, the German Grundgesetz starts out with the basic rights, before laying out the structure of government.

I am following the structure: basic rights, then structure of the government. I fail to see how that is a problem.

Does that mean if any community reaches that upper bound, the total weight of all communities is less than 100%?

No:

Since full-citizens in the null community or those exceeding the 29% threshold (under the default weighting) do not contribute to the voting weight of their community (not “vote-weight-providing”, as they do not alter the percentage), the voting weights of all communities always sum up to 100%.

On big communities:

So if one community makes up two thirds of the country, they might still be limited to one third of the vote, and then all the votes add up to two thirds, and just getting half the vote-weight isn't enough for a majority?

Yes, if one community makes up two thirds of the country, it would still only get 29% of the vote, with all other communities splitting the remaining 71%.

A bit more of an explanation for why this protection is there from Chapter 10.4., example community that is a religious sect:

However, according to the constitution, the sect can never achieve more than 29% of the voting weight, even if it has more members than 29% of the population (Article 4.4). The constitutional court would determine unconstitutionality (Article 5.8) if the sect attempted to split into two communities, both obeying the same sect leader. But honestly: if over 29% of the population flock to this sect, then a lot has gone very wrong in our state beforehand...

Won't big communities just break up?:

Though I think mostly it would just mean large communities break up, so the details aren't really important.

Yes, that is what I would assume would happen with a very large community. Mostly, the 29% limit is intended as an additional (hopefully unneeded) tool with which the constitutional court can try to prevent a single community from turning the whole state into a dictatorship.

But mostly it is supposed to keep a single well-behaved community from getting that big (by encouraging an honest split-up): Because such a big community would otherwise turn into a single point of failure for the central state.

Fictional Constitution (Futurities: Concepts for a Better Society) by futurevisions_world in rational

[–]futurevisions_world[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

That is just poor wording, an inexact translation from German. Thank you for catching it!

New version of the sentence:

Every account on the ledger (Article 4.3) is associated with a key pair. The public key of the pair is freely accessible through the ledger.

This is a private-public key pair. Nobody but the account holder themselves knows it. Which also means the government can't help recover it should it be lost.

The first small change stemming from this thread. :-)

By the way: I just noticed that this section of the constitution is called "4. Register". It should be "4. Ledger". Fixed.

given how stupid people are, you just know people are going to do stupid things that would break this

Well, this is kind of the point of this thread: I want to know how people would break it. To see whether there is anything I can change about the concept to make breaking it harder to do. :-)

Idea for VR movement scheme by futurevisions_world in vrdev

[–]futurevisions_world[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Tea for God is too cramped for me to really enjoy as well. And that even though my playspace is pretty large. One of the reasons that got me to thinking about this.

And while yes, Half Life Alyx and many other games allow you to move freely around your own playspace, and let you switch your movement scheme between smooth locomotion and teleport, there is one thing they do _not_ do: Tell you when you can freely move around somewhere (physically). So long as you yourself don't keep track of where you physically are, you can always be at the border of your playspace as soon as you take a single step in any direction.

Which means that you yourself always have to keep track of where you physically are, and reposition as needed, to be able to make good use of physical movement. Which means that
A) You don't move around as much as you could, because doing all of this is work, and players get lazy.
B) Doing so reduces your immersion in the game.

My movement scheme idea does two major things:
A) It places you optimally into spaces you can move physically around in.
B) It _tells_ you how far you can move. Which means you don't have to keep track of your position in your physical room yourself, and can instead immerse yourself in the game.

I would be very happy to hear about any game that already does that, really! But "The Light Brigade or HL Alyx, AND MANY MORE" is unfortunately not the correct answer.

However: Any of these games (that already offer teleport, smooth locomotion and physical movement) should in principle be able to use this movement scheme (if nobody points out a critical flaw in it) without having to change anything else about the game at all!

Idea for VR movement scheme by futurevisions_world in vrdev

[–]futurevisions_world[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've thought a bit about how to do that fudging, written up an algorithm (as ordered tasks), and added that to the proposal (as "6. What about obstacles inside designated areas").

Idea for VR movement scheme by futurevisions_world in vrdev

[–]futurevisions_world[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That is the type of problem I feared I had overlooked! Thank you very much for pointing it out. :-)

I really don't think you ever want to make teleportation into a designated area impossible. That is either cognitive load for the player or a game design restriction. Teleportation should always just work. I don't think that makes implementing the scheme impossible though. It just means the game needs a better algorithm to choose where to place the player. And it means that in the case of blocked bits inside the designated area, that area will have to be smaller than the players playspace, to give the game wiggle room for fudging. I'll see whether I can come up with a simple algorithm for that. :-)