root wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:31 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Note the following excerpt from the judgement of 1774: >> >>> If the effort is an obvious or apparent scam or abuse of other >>> player's time and efforts, and the scam wholly depends on ISIDTID >>> to absolve the scammer of any comparative effort (e.g. the effort >>> of actually doing would be a significant practical barrier for >>> the scammer), we should treat ISIDTID as a fallacy for that case. >>> >>> Note that requiring the scammer to repeat the message 10,000 >>> times is not that much of a technical or time effort; eg. 5 minutes >>> and a perl script. It does present a cultural/social barrier >>> which is a de facto effort to break. >> "I initiate 10,000 inquiry cases" is blocked by this test, even if the >> drudge work of recordkeeping its effect were largely automated (someone >> would have to spend time and effort formulating the automation). "I >> become inactive and active 999 times" is arguably not blocked, as the >> relevant recordkeeping would simply consist of adding "(above pair of >> events repeated 999 times)" to the list of recent events. > > In the first case, the relevant recordkeeping would also just consist > of adding "(above pair of events repeated 10,000 times)". If the > block is entirely cultural/social, then I would argue that 999 is > still enough to activate it.
The precedent's "abuse of other player's time and efforts" clause is not limited to mandatory recordkeeping. Anyone who's followed the game for a while will notice the role of the CotC DB. Note that IIRC this precedent was written while we lacked a clause for nullifying excess cases. Announcing "I initiate 10,000 inquiry cases" now would arguably be no worse than comex's latest batch.
