Well If you REALLY wanna know you can scroll up in this endless thread where I tried to explain or just send me a PM and I will try to give you a short version.
I think this thread has gotten way out of hand, is no longer usefull to anyone, and I will probably close it soon. Kosh had a nice idea in another thread that might be a good compromise Automatic Vacation After Multiple Time-outs (Correspondence) - #8 by smurph we will be looking into that one. For the time being you will have to make do with the current rule. I am sorry if it is bothering you a lot, but we are convinced that it is way better than the simple alternative.
we are not really hiding it, as we are still lacking documentation alltogether. But on the other hand, since we know that the rule might be misusable maybe not showing it too obviously is a good thing, since less people will be tempted to do it.