I don't think it's necessary to babysit the intention and morality of someone else. We can't know if they're going to cut and paste, or instead be delighted at enough detailed code to figure it out for themselves. There's a certain amount of trust that can be afforded to others until and unless they actually show reason not to trust them.
So a counterpoint to trying to prevent cuts and pastes, is that it expends time on that, while avoiding time focused on simply helping others as best as possible, and letting them decide how much to work in their own best interest.
When TAing in college, I caught those who cheated when I could, but mostly I focused on teaching those who wanted to learn. I knew well, that those who cheated would not learn as much and would live to regret their lack of skills later... and their lack of self-confidence that comes from not having solved something.
So as a newbie to SO, I've found code answers to be very helpful and more so than a minimalist approach that's trying not to help me "too much." It's confusing enough, and code often explains better than words what's needed.
To add to that -- I'm a former programmer, so often I can't figure out what's being explained in words, but can figure out code. Or I can't figure out code but every time I've asked, someone's explained more and I've been very well helped. (I wish there was a way to select more than one answer, or to select partial helpful answers when it's been a collective response that's gotten me where I'm going.)
The points system in SO works to motivate. It can also then tend to led to a sense of monitoring others and babysitting that's maybe not necessary or doesn't lead to adult trust that tends to spark more mature peoples' sticking around. So that's another angle to assess from. There's a balance to consider of how to approach everything.
