Could the officer have a shorthand like mine in their report?
> On May 20, 2017, at 9:25 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 20 May 2017, Quazie wrote: >> You are the worst. I will likely give up superintendent if you Finalize the >> intent on these. >> >> Also PSS this is what limited agency proposal is for, this awfulness. > > So, there was a long-ago discussion/set of precedents (I'll have to look > the exact cases up later). But the principle is this: > > Saying "I do X 100 times" is not really an action, as there's no rule that > allows multiple actions for one action announcement. Technically speaking, > you're supposed to type out "I do X" 100 times. "I do X 100 times" is an > I said I did (ISID) because you didn't actually make 100 announcements. > > Now, it would be a pain in the butt to type things out 100 times (and make > the Officer count how many), so we allow for shorthand. But the shorthand > is an "administrative convenience", and shouldn't be taken to be the actual > allowable announcement. Following from this, anything that breaks the > "administrative convenience" of the shorthand may not work - the officer is > able to dispute/ignore it as "not technically correct", as long as e is not > arbitrary and capricious about doing so. > > The obvious application is for infinite things: "10 I vote FOR; 20 GOTO 10". > In this case, we say "no, you didn't set an infinite loop in motion - you > just said you did (ISID)". > > HOWEVER, the cases in question involved "large but finite" actions. In other > words, we declared "I do X 100,000 times" to be invalid if each X required > the Officer to make a separate tracking, as the administrative difficulties > to the Officer outweighed the administrative convenience to the actor. We > said: "If you really want to do that, you need to put in the work and write > it all out". > > Now, with a script, that's easy (and would make a painfully long email, and > require the Officer to "count each action"). But it was thought that the > social pressure of "don't be a jerk" would make someone think before they > sent something that long, whereas allowing them to get away with a short > "For each" message doesn't make them stop and consider. > > Of course, if the rewards are great enough, someone will do it. I remember > someone (omd springs to mind) was required to actually, once, write out > "I do X" 10,000 or so times for a scam. It's also why, when Alexis pulled > eir Dictatorship back in November, e took the trouble to write out: > Then, without changing or retracting my previous vote, I cast a ballot > of FOR on the Agoran decision on whether or not to adopt Proposal 7821. > Then, without changing or retracting my previous votes, I cast a ballot > of FOR on the Agoran decision on whether or not to adopt Proposal 7821. > 100+ times, so no one could call em on it. > > Also of course, it introduces a squishy line on where "reasonable convenience" > for the actor crosses the line of "unreasonable workload" for the officer - > why > would 1000 times be ok, but 1001 too much? > > But at the very least, the principle would prevent these sorts of obviously > over-the-top algorithms from having effect. > > I don't expect you to take my word for it - I don't know if those past > judgments are still valid in today's ruleset and I'll find the precedents if > I can. > > But it may be worth reviving that thinking here. > >
