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? ----- Original Message ----- From: YKY (Yan King Yin) To: agi@v2.listbox.com Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:13 PM Subject: Re: [agi] AGI Consortium On 6/10/07, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > YKY> Think: if you have contributed something, it'd be in your best interest to give accurate estimates rather than exaggerate or depreciate them > > MW> Why wouldn't it be to my advantage to exaggerate my contributions? > > YKY> But your peers in the network won't allow that. > > MW> That is an entirely different argument (and one that I'm not willing to concede since I don't believe that the network can accurately prevent exaggeration without accidentally short-changing some decent percentage of contributors). Your statement was "if you have contributed something, it'd be in your best interest to give accurate estimates rather than exaggerate or depreciate them". I would like an explanation of why part of your statement is true. YKY> Sorry it's a bit complicated... A) First, there's the problem of estimating how much a particular piece of contribution is worth. As I've explained before, this will be done by self-rating + optional peer-rating + etc... and I think it will give acceptable estimates on average. You said: "I don't believe that the network can accurately prevent exaggeration without accidentally short-changing some decent percentage of contributors ". I don't understand what exactly you mean by "short-changing". Can you give an example? Are you saying that a decent percentage of contributors would recieve *systematically incorrect* crediting? I wonder why. B) Secondly, there's the problem of someone wanting to "check out" while taking some other members' contributions along (note: one is always free to use one's *own* ideas / contributions elsewhere). In that case we need to estimate how much shares the new project owes the consortium. Maybe we'll rely on the managerial board for that. But the most important part is (A). My statement that you questioned above, is re estimating X% = $C / $C + $c, which is my earlier idea for solving (B). But it's not essential to the scheme, and it seems overly complicated, so we may simply ask the managerial board to make an estimate instead. 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