Hmm, it's a problem. If you're worried that emails can't be proven,
you have to be equally worried that a bidder may lie versus the
announcer lying. If we get to the point that a bidder says "I sent
you a bid" and the announcer says "no you didn't", where should the
burden of proof be? (As an aside, we had Secret Voting before and
and over many votes I don't remember anything that wasn't resolved
right away as an honest mistake).
On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and
> intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class
> 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without
> objection incorrect information.
>
> fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say
> they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone
> else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report.
>
> On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote:
> >> Also
> >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no
> >> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing".
> >
> > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to
> > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose
> > offices based on subgames they're interested in.
> >
> > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting
> > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir
> > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the
> > auction results.
> >
> >> Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an
> >> Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and
> >> Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail".
> >
> > So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime?
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>
