On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 12:37 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On 2/17/2019 12:29 PM, ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk wrote: > > On Sun, 2019-02-17 at 11:52 -0800, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > I think this one's been driven into the ground as hard as it possibly > > > can be. Time for Agora move on. > > > > Win by Apathy, in addition to being something you can aim for (which I > > agree has been run into the ground), is also there to give dependent > > action scams something simple they can accomplish without having to > > cause more widespread damage. > > Yes, I know your logic, which is why I didn't propose this in the past. But > this has just become too much of a target - in that the rule directly > encourages trying to scam it, and the constant stream of attempts is > positively annoying. Gaelan had to specifically ask me to remove my > standard intent boilerplate, otherwise eir scam would have been trivially > stopped - any time someone's putting up a boilerplate to stop a constant > stream of scam attempts means it's become just too prevalent. I'm really > ready to have stop being such a focus.
Theory: what about requiring a payment for dependent action intents in general or Apathy intents in particular? This would discourage people from attempting them frivolously, and also make them harder to hide. (Of course, this might require a rewrite of the dependent action rules, but we're doing that anyway.) -- ais523
