On 5/29/08, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If valid scams should be allowed, then so should valid counter-scams; > this alone is a red herring.
Perhaps, but then Goethe's (purported-- as I mentioned, e claims this was not eir intent) scam-buster should be considered a scam itself, a sort of anti-Mousetrap. In the Mousetrap Thesis, it's described how a scam that goes too far besides just plugging the loophole (too many gravy for the scamsters) is un-Agoran. But awarding a little gravy is reasonable, and preventing a scam from doing even that should be frowned upon. > Not in time to block the initial pay-out. Exactly. The contest could only award a few points, considering its small basis, hardly game-breaking. By the way: The fact that the scamsters could have numbered three and prevented the contest from being decontestified does belie this argument.
