[BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...)
jeff.ford at gmail.com
Fri Nov 9 17:55:05 CET 2012
I agree with this - it's the reason I think the newer revoke laws were a
On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 3:41 AM, Jerry Fusselman <jfusselman at gmail.com>wrote:
> Let me see if I understand Nigel's point. Is he saying that focusing
> on equity instead of deterrence naturally leads to law breakers
> keeping their ill-gotten gains perhaps roughly 50% of the time due to
> a lack of detection while being returned to their equity position the
> other 50% of the time? Is he saying that this implies that law
> breaking with equity-based "rectifications" has an expected net gain?
> Is he also saying that a higher penalty would lead to less law
> breaking and a more appropriate expected outcome in which law breaking
> had an expected net loss? And is he saying that creating an
> environment with an expected net loss to law breaking is good for the
> game, which means that equity-based laws are bad for the game?
> If so, I agree with his analysis. For those on BLML who disagree, I
> wonder if they could point out which step in this analysis is in
> Jerry Fusselman
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Blml