[SleepingDragon]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think a bot-bounty/reward would be very practical.

They would get all kinds of e-mails about it just hoping to collect the bounty.
Plus, most people are too stupid to know one way or another anyway.

I've been accused in the chat-box of colluding about a dozen times. Every time it was with someone I didn't know at all.

I'm sure many of these people really did report my play to support as they said they were going to.
...


[/ QUOTE ]
With all due respect to your 17000+ posts, did you read the part where I said "If your investigation determines they're wrong, you don't investigate any further report of bots from them."?

There may be reasons they've considered the idea I proposed and rejected it. And if so fine, I have no problem with that, my intention wasn't to push that particular idea, it was to suggest to Lee an instrument he could use to measure whether obvious ideas had been considered and if so rejected for well considered reasons.

But your specific rejection is way too quick I think. If in fact as you say "I'm sure many of these people really did report my play to support as they said they were going to.", please note that my idea would as a corollary create a mechanism for *very* quickly dealing with most of those people for once and for all - after the first report of you as a bot, any minimal implementation of the idea would instantly flag all the subsequent users reporting you as a bot as:
a) no you're wrong (insert appropriate template reply here), and
b) internal note on your file that we won't ever again listen to you complaining about this kind of thing (though of course we'll be nice about it with form letter (b) which references incident (a) )

OTOH, people who really want to claim the bounty would (I hope, and yes the idea is just off the top of my head) be discouraged from applying before they had some certainty because they'd know that if they were wrong that would mark the end of their bounty hunting. There'd be a strong incentive for them to ensure they were right before posting.

My guess (and yes it needs discussion, but please remember that I was only suggesting that this be a yardstick of an IDEA WHICH IF NOT CONSIDERED YET means a problem, NOT an idea which if you haven't done it means you are morons) is that this idea could be made into something useful. But I do understand that to be a guess. I just want Lee to realize that if the idea hasn't even been discussed then there's something wrong with the idea generation process in his group.

My personal bet is that Stars could actually improve support efficiency while doing this, but that's just me.