On Mon, 10 Dec 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> If someone submits a text and claims without
> evidence that e transferred 10+ to ATMunn in the past (perhaps risking No
> Faking), then the "more likely than not" burden of proof might swing either
> way... but it seems unlikely.
>
> Though I just noticed that we've got the burden of proof reversed: you
> have to prove it "more likely than not" that you're innocent, so a 50/50
> uninformed guilty/innocent would be "guilty". Probably not desired in
> the law?
Heh. For example, in the above situation (where someone claims that e
gave 10+ coins to ATMunn), if the referee/courts find it a 50/50 chance
that either is correct, then both would be guilty (because it would not
be "more likely than not" that ATMunn kept the pledge, and it would not
be "more likely than not" that the other player wasn't Faking).
