Oh, family!
The immediate family is asleep, but for the cat, seeking attention, or some advantage.
Before starting, take a shower.
Before starting, empty the air dryer in the bathroom
Before starting, remove the washed dishes and cutlery from the dishwasher and put them all away
Before starting, read the mail
Before starting, read the news
Before starting, make a cup of coffee
Before starting, read the news again
Before starting, look at the offers on Ebay.
¡START!
Before starting, read the last mails, just for reference
Then start,
wish him well,
hope that there has been a good recovery,
then a few general things
then a bit more specific,
then (verbatim)
The concept that such a limited number of competing participants are to decide on the value of the items that they themselves want to then buy seems to be inviting a corrupt assessment. Such an assessment would become even more questionable if false or otherwise erroneous valuations remain without consequences, ie there would be no obligation upon the participants to buy the piece at the suggested value.
The available funds being based on these valuations open interesting opportunities for manipulation. One concept that comes to mind is that items of no interest be overvalued, in the hope that competing buyers will waste their available funds if they purchase these items. If there is knowledge of which items are of particular interest to the other participants this method could be of use to secure this advantage.
Averaging the separate values is problematic considering the small number of assumedly antagonistic participants. Over or undervaluations will only be weakly compensated for. Cooperations between groups of participants would be particularly effective in securing an advantage.
As in a game of Monopoly, there is no gain in assuming good faith in your partners in the game.
The available funds being based on these valuations open interesting opportunities for manipulation. One concept that comes to mind is that items of no interest be overvalued, in the hope that competing buyers will waste their available funds if they purchase these items. If there is knowledge of which items are of particular interest to the other participants this method could be of use to secure this advantage.
Averaging the separate values is problematic considering the small number of assumedly antagonistic participants. Over or undervaluations will only be weakly compensated for. Cooperations between groups of participants would be particularly effective in securing an advantage.
As in a game of Monopoly, there is no gain in assuming good faith in your partners in the game.
And that is the mornings work, an attempt to misplace not a single word.
No comments:
Post a Comment