On Sun, Aug 9, 2009 at 11:38 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > I can't act as a judge in the face of this ridiculous spam. > > Calling for multiple unlinked judgements as a call for "consistency" > is a bit of a farce (as opposed to hoping that one will be assigned > to someone friendly and thus be your loophole)
Not necessarily unlinked; I intended each "group" to be linked (so there would be 4 judges) but it's the CotC's option how to link them; I wouldn't mind if they were all assigned to the same person, as long as each statement was answered. As it is, any one of them being assigned a "friendly" judgement would not make the scam work, though various combinations of judgements would (and others not). The important part is that I can assess the truth of the statements separately: while a judgement of "no, it doesn't work because X" would be appropriate for the original case, getting a judicial opinion on other factors lets me avoid wasting Agora's time with endless variations of the same scam. Either it works, in which case I can make a relatively unambiguous scam attempt, or it doesn't, in which case I'll stop. All of these CFJs, by the way, are on tangential issues: I assumed the issues that have already been debated would be addressed in your judgement. -- -c.
