Just for the record, my own prejudice is that I saw sufficient objections and I think the burden is on the scammer before I as herald would Award a win, but I've always been bothered by our approach to scams that work by spamming actions because it's such a squishy standard - might be persuadable.
On Thu, 28 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > I call a CFJ with ap: With the below resolution of intent, VJ Rada won > the game by apathy. > > First: Is the text, with no spaces between apathy and the next > without, sufficient to create many many intents to win by apathy? > > Second: Was Gaelan's attempt sufficient? That consists of finding and > replacing my words with what appears to be "I object" in Chinese. > 2a: Is this OK under our language precedents? > 2b: Is simply typing "I object" as many times as there are intents, > without more, enough to unambiguously signify which intents the > objector is objecting to? > > Third: Is Aris's attempt to object sufficient? E simply stated "I > object to all the intents in the below message" or similar. Under our > precedents, which ban somebody from taking an unreasonable number of > actions in shorthand where copying and pasting would be hard, does > this shorthand take too many actions? Is our precedent in this area, > more common-law than textual, able to be flexibly applied to serve the > purpose of stopping scams as Aris contends? > > It's quite hard to decide who to bar, honestly. Aris has already > expressed an opinion on it, PSS has also done so, G. has also done so, > I don't think o. has? He might be the only one. I bar PSS bc G and > Aris are already overloaded. > > -- > From V.J. Rada >
