Why I made this page

I wrote this page for two reasons. The first reason is personal and I admit somewhat petty. The second is quixotic. I'll lay all my cards on the table and tell you both.

One, I wrote this page following a very frustrating email discussion with Robin Hanson. I'm putting the arguments he ignored up for public view.

Two, I hoped that this discussion, even the personality clash aspect of it, might serve to interest people in the futarchy idea. I created a Yahoo group for discussing it. Anyone interested in the idea is invited to visit it.

The emails

• (Not available) Robin to all: Announcement of the first version of his Futarchy paper.
• Tom to Robin My comments on the first version of his futarchy paper. Summary: I largely agree with his points, but on a few points I raise questions.

  First tentative mention of the problem that ultimately this discussion focusses on: "it's not clear that policy writers would have incentive to be as clear as possible".

• Robin to Tom. (Not available) Robin did respond but I don't still have a copy. IIRC his response is mostly quoted in my next email.
• Tom to Robin My comments on his comments. Summary: I accept his answer to one point, but not his answer to another.

  Robin did not respond to this ever, as far as I recall.

• Tom to Robin (Posted on overcomingbias.com ) I re-raise the issue and sketch a solution.
• Robin to Tom Summary: Robin wants me to read his papers that he thinks answer my argument.
• Tom to Robin Summary: I will read them (as it happens, when I Dl'ed them I found I already had). But your other paper on this topic, foulplay.pdf didn't answer my argument. I'd rather have a public discussion, but I leave it up to you.

  This went unanswered

• Tom to Robin Summary: I have read those papers and they're not an answer. I explain the consequences for the math of his biashelp model.
• Robin to Tom Robin says he doesn't see what the problem is.
• Tom to Robin Summary: I give a recipe for the exploit, both as a one paragraph summary and as a somewhat detailed recipe.
• Robin to Tom Summary: Robin makes the only argument he makes in the whole 2007 exchange, but it's circular.
• Tom to Robin By this point it's clear that our assumptions differ grossly. Summary: I explain the problem again and try hard to find out where our assumptions differ.
• Robin to Tom Summary: Robin insults me and demands the argument be cast into a form that misses the point.

  Note: I know for a fact that Robin has been made aware of the Asymmetric Information Problem, because he mentions it in the first futarchy paper, but in this email he appears not to grasp it.

• Tom, public response Summary: I won't recast the argument yet an eighth time as Robin demands.
• Tom, open letter to Robin My take on the conversation in retrospect. Peeved but not rude.