comex wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 3:46 PM, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, 11 Aug 2009, Elliott Hird wrote:
>>>> 2009/8/11 Sgeo <sgeos...@gmail.com>:
>>>>> I haven't been paying much attention. What offices have you scammed?
>>>> CotC, majorly.
>>> Do you mean overriding random assignments to get favorable judges or
>>> something more insidious? Because the former is just an office perk;
>>> like the G.P. choosing whom to promote. -G.
>> I did conspire with you and Sherlock to set up the CFJ 1594/1596
>> paradox. I've also conspired on a few occasions to resolve a proposal
>> and then perform a related action in the same message.
>
> I think e's referring to the five lights scam.
Oh, I remember it now.
For the new players, this was an attempt to (all in one message, via
acting-on-behalf) publish lots of obviously-bogus Notices of Violation,
contest them, CFJ them, judge them TRUE (immediately assigning a Rest
apiece), then have the conspirators flip their Activity around; the
intent was that each conspirator in turn would be the only active
Rest-free player, thus Win by Not Losing. It failed on two counts:
1) We somehow forgot about the rising support requirement to publish
multiple NoVs in the same week.
2) I mistakenly omitted Pavitra from the list of non-conspirators
(I think e had recently become active again). Due to the wording
of the acting-on-behalf contract, this meant that the entire
attempt was entirely without effect.
We could have fixed it (by adding a conspirator and spreading out
initiation/support to circumvent problem #1), but decided that a less
stylish set of wins with worse reprisals wasn't worth it.
