yes because it's the one case where lying is perfectly doable and intentional lying could almost never be distinguished by anyone. class 9 isn't even huge. it's one above intending to ratify without objection incorrect information.
fair point on the first one. I would have simplicity reign and say they MUST privately email the speaker, or prime minister, or someone else, who can verify if the person has lied after they report. On Mon, Jul 2, 2018 at 10:04 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2018, Rebecca wrote: >> Also >> add in a new paragraph "Rules and Contracts notwithstanding, no >> Announcer may ever bid on an Auction they are Announcing". > > This is a massive disadvantage: It's unfair to ask an officer to > completely stay out of a subgame, especially because people choose > offices based on subgames they're interested in. > > My suggestion would be something like: In the auction-starting > announcement, the announcer CAN include an SHA-512 hash of eir > bid. Such a bid cannot be changed and MUST be reported with the > auction results. > >> Failing to correctly and fully relate the results of an Auction as an >> Auction announcer is the Class-9 Crime of Auction Obfuscation, and >> Auction announcers SHALL NOT so fail". > > So, um... any honest mistake and it's a class-9 crime? > -- >From V.J. Rada
