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. -root
