On Sun, 12 Apr 2020 at 14:43, James Cook via agora-discussion < agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
> Great re-use of the Agoran decision rules! You should probably define > "excess lot" so resale value can decay appropriately for those. Two > more comments inline: > Ah, good point. > On Sun, 5 Apr 2020 at 03:56, Alexis Hunt via agora-discussion > <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > auction is currently in progress (initiated but not resolved), the > > Registrar CAN initiate a zombie auction. > > Needs a method. > R107 > > 4. For an auction, the outcome is an association of voters (winners) to > > valid options (prizes) determined as follows. For each voter in > descending > > order of bids, breaking ties in favour of the voter who first submitted a > > (possibly-withdrawn) vote with a given bid amount, of the remaining > prizes, > > I don't think withdrawn bids should be included when breaking ties. > That will incentivize me to bid all possible values right at the start > of the auction, so that I'll always have been the first to have > submitted a (possibly-withdrawn) bid for any given amount. > > - Falsifian > The idea here was that if someone changes the ordering of the zombies in eir bid, it doesn't cause em to lose priority. And you can't do what you suggest, because you can only increase your bid. You cannot decrease it, so your suggestion doesn't work. I'd prefer to avoid needing to resubmit a ballot to change zombie ordering; perhaps that wouldn't be as much additional burden on the complexity as I originally thought.
