Users cannot engage in transactions with themselves. Updated the doc to reflect this.
(Answer, you cannot. So this is not a valid solution to this problem.)
In your case, you could even do the opposite: Pay me and my friends, or we will dislike every transaction you will ever make. Built-in racketeering
From my G+ reshare, in the context of a question about account caps:
https://plus.google.com/u/0/+DanielEstrada/posts/hQfNmirDfsm
> I suppose one way around the cap would be for users to maintain multiple accounts. I have no objection to this in principle, although it has an impact on the networks they can develop on any one account. If I have 20 Strangecoin accounts all coupled to and supporting each other, but are only receiving income through one account connected to the external network, then my subnet isn't going to grow larger as a whole than the one node connected externally. So I can't use multiple accounts to inflate just my identity. If I'm using multiple accounts, it's because I want to maintain multiple identities. Again I have no objection to this, or at least the protocol I've described doesn't rule it out.
Define the "external network". What keeps a single entity from simulating a network just as large as everyone else combined? At that point, how does one determine which network is the "correct" one, though both are the same size with the exact same connectedness stats?