On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Ian Kelly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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
>
I think the cultural/socual block might just be an effect of needing
to send multiple messages to do so many actions. If multiple messages
are not needed, then I don't see any cultural/social consequences of
one message with a lot of lines.
