Perhaps this loophole should be fixed.

Really?

It used to work correctly before in which it was forced to send higher than that amount of 0.49 or just wait for the timer to end.

Voted yes... .01 msg sending is just a loophole to the blocking communication.

No. That's not correct mens.

I just evaluated your premise just to find I was unable to replicate it: 0.40 fg is blocked when sent shortly after 0.01fg . Djsem has a point indeed.

Paul's implementation is functional and it doesn't have the loophole you mentioned as far as I can tell.

We just tried it when I had brought it up.

Unsure what the timer it is but...

2012 6 14 6:01:01 Received 0.01 (7,940.94 -> 7,940.95) from Mens (36,480.38 -> 36,480.36) try 1
2012 6 14 6:01:38 Received 0.40 (7,940.95 -> 7,941.34) from Mens (36,480.37 -> 36,479.97) try 2
2012 6 14 6:02:08 Received 0.40 (7,941.35 -> 7,941.75) from Mens (36,479.97 -> 36,479.57) try 3
2012 6 14 6:02:23 Received 0.40 (7,941.75 -> 7,942.15) from Mens (36,479.57 -> 36,479.17) see my point?

It is still considered spam when you have the pm active.

Can flood within minutes if someone is bored (which is possible).

Sure you can Pm a higher up to suspend them / verbal them, but it would not fix the issue with others doing it.

I am still not for the blocking fg but I would like to see something done for this low fg spam.

Can't comment of your successfully receiving multiple 0.40fg amounts. Perhaps mens is a premium jsp user or something. Here's what I got:

PC~10:24:02 jsp~10:20:32 > 0.01fg --> fine

PC~10:24:20 jsp~10:20:50 > 0.40fg --> no



For reference, I've never sent 0.40fg to anybody prior to the above attempt.

That's my experience.

so you lied about evaluation my premise -.- classy
all your image says is "are you sure" shouldn't block you from sending

This post was edited by Mens on Jun 14 2012 11:10am

?

Nope. Please read again.

why would you not be for blocking fg... it's not like it will force you to block fg from everyone you block its simply an option
the opposition against this is really meaningless

so far NONE of you have provided any good reason that this should not be implemented

Perhaps the more pressing question is how come you haven't notified Paul of the loophole about an issue he tried to address?