On Wed, Aug 19, 2009 at 6:35 PM, Kerim Aydin<ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > I think there's precedent that randomly high votes work fine (I suppose > unless some critical threshold in the upper reaches makes a scam work). > But it may be just that assessors haven't questioned it. In theory it > may matter that a person's identical votes cast in the same way are > essentially fungible (e.g. you don't generally have to specify which > ballots you retract if you retract some). CFJs aren't so fungible. -G.
Not to mention that they have ID numbers. (For that matter, I picked 10,000 as a number of spam CFJs to call because, if the CotC assigned them standard ID numbers, it would cause a jump from 1234 to 11234, which is more obvious/somewhat less obnoxious than 1234 to 1434..) -- -c.
