Marty: the answer has to cover what a member is risking when they send POL to
somebody they have not spoken to and have no commitment from.
The canned answer now leads the advice with "do not send anything until you have
actually talked to that person and they have told you they will use it", then says
plainly: the transfer is wallet to wallet and irreversible, there is no refund and
no chargeback, support cannot pull it back, the gift is theirs whatever they do with
it, and they are free to go quiet or spend it on something else without breaking any
rule. It names the worst case for what it is, which is that a tank member joined
with nobody working with them and may never have engaged, so an unanswered PIF is
the easiest money on this site to lose.
It gives the arithmetic both ways rather than only the upside: a gift that works
costs about half, because the contract pays the sponsor 50 percent when they buy;
a gift to someone who never answers costs all of it. It ends on never gift money
you need and never borrow to do it.
The same guidance goes into the AI prompt as a standing rule, so PIF is never sold
as a tactic on any phrasing that misses the canned pattern, and a "should I PIF
someone from the tank" question starts with talk to them first, not the mechanics.
qa/chatbot-parse.mjs is now 16 assertions: the 9 response-shape cases plus 7 that
pin each risk line, so a future rewrite cannot quietly drop them.
qa/run.sh member: 0 bugs.
Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
martbost
3867b28bd4