(Anonymous) 2022-10-25 09:47 pm (UTC)(link)
DA

There are arguments on both sides. I think at the point where you're playing weird games, you'd be better off just telling people they're not welcome in your exchange.

Though, sometimes you suspect someone of particular behavior but it's hard to prove. In that case the best strategies involve treating a person in a way that's going to thwart them if they're up to shady business but where they won't notice or be affected if they're participating in good faith.

(Anonymous) 2022-10-25 09:57 pm (UTC)(link)
That's what this is. If they're participating in good faith, they get a gift. If they aren't, they get a vanishing placeholder and complaining about it would be admitting that they aren't.

(Anonymous) 2022-10-25 09:58 pm (UTC)(link)
If I was participating in good faith, I would still ask questions about a vanishing gift. I don't understand why you think only bad faith participants would question this.

(Anonymous) 2022-10-25 10:04 pm (UTC)(link)
This still isn't a great strategy with this particular participant because they don't uniformly default. It runs the risk of both confusing people and looking dodgy - gifts don't disappear THAT often - and getting the exchange delayed because now someone only has the period between deadline and reveals to consume and write for one of their obscure visual novels.