>> I'm sorry about the confusion. Let me correct by saying: it *is* to your >> advantage to exaggerate your contributions, but your peers won't allow it.
Cool. I'll then move back to my other point that is probably better phrased as "I don't believe you (or any current human) can set up a system which is both systematic and reasonably fair under the constraints you've chosen." I also note that you've made several references to a managerial board. How do you intend to select this board? How do you intend to keep them honest? How is this truly different from my "trustworthy owners" (except from, of course, the manner in which they are selected -- or maybe not even then since maybe I'll just have a nomination and election process before I set up)? ----- Original Message ----- From: YKY (Yan King Yin) To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:52 PM Subject: Re: [agi] AGI Consortium On 6/11/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm going to temporarily ignore my doubts about accurate assessments to try to get my initial question answered yet again. > > Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions? I'm sorry about the confusion. Let me correct by saying: it *is* to your advantage to exaggerate your contributions, but your peers won't allow it. The origin of the confusion is re point (B), which is not essential. Can I skip the explanation of that? 'Cause I don't want to make the scheme sound overly complicated. YKY ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=231415&user_secret=e9e40a7e
