root wrote: > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:37 PM, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 1:33 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 4:27 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>> On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 2:07 PM, Sgeo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>>>> I go on hold. I come off hold. I repeat the last two actions 999 more >>>>> times. >>>> I'm just going to infer from CFJ 1774 that the last 999 of these failed. >>>> >>>> -root >>>> >>> Are there any significant problems with the idea that I could have >>> repeated that line 999 more times in one message? >>> >> I'm not sure that CFJ 1774 can just be applied, in fact it states: >> "For this to serve as a principle, we must assert a standard of >> reasonable effort: unfortunately this is subjective. And as >> such, this will have to be tried on a case-by-case basis." >> >> Certainly it gives an example after that, but 999 is far less than >> 10000, and so I'm not sure that it applies. > > It could be argued that CFJ 1584 sets the precedent that 1000 is > reasonable, but the intent of that case was never to set such a > standard. > > I will note that performing the same action 1,000 times takes at least > 9 copies and 14 pastes; the same action 10,000 times takes at least 13 > copies and 17 pastes, which is not significantly more effort.
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.
