[BLML] Eric, or, Little by Little (was Eric...)

Jeff Ford 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
step backward.


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
> error.
>
> Jerry Fusselman
> _______________________________________________
> Blml mailing list
> Blml at rtflb.org
> http://lists.rtflb.org/mailman/listinfo/blml
>



-- 
Jeff Ford
Redmond, WA
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.rtflb.org/pipermail/blml/attachments/20121109/6cd86f52/attachment.html 


More information about the Blml mailing list