My guess would be that it's similar to the challenges faced by the SEC when they try to regulate the financial markets. Some strategies are so new that the laws haven't been written yet or they're written in a way that certain strategies fall through the cracks or directly take advantage of loopholes. In addition, some actions live in a gray zone and it's hard to define where the line is drawn. The porn test has the same problem.Kriegsspiel wrote: ↑Thu Feb 14, 2019 4:52 pmHow that's not a crime is beyond me. That's interfering in elections. And we know it.
The way the SEC handles it is similar to how I moderate the forum. It's not ideal but it's the only way. Basically if a given behavior is destructive and the person is challenged, the perp has to be able to explain how their behavior served a constructive purpose. If they can not, they're guilty, retroactively.
This is not how the legal system normally works... but I don't see any alternative when bad actors are deliberately gaming the [legal] system.