I can see your point of view. When I write fraud I mean something I can verify like plagiarism, NSF stuff, scams, etc. I can't DV for something like an opinion. People have to agree with it. I also started waiting. I'll make a comment, wait for a response, and then act.
If, for example, someone quoted something from another source but didn't cite it, I'd bring it up and wait for a correction. That part can take some time, but it seems to make people happier. Mind you, none of this is a hard requirement. I just hope to influence enough to follow something similar. We tried to make it a hard requirement, but it failed.
That's very good, it sounds to me like
you have laudable downvote ethics!
I prefer not to do it, honestly. However, if I present a method acceptable then maybe others can follow suit. Ideally, my goal would be, instead, to avoid its use and utilize engagement as a means of deterrence. Unfortunately, the ecosystem is too large. While I can focus on a small community and start driving a small population to engage, there are too many other instances that escape my notice.
I'd love to read all about the Scholaris
method of downvote etiquette. Many
others could also learn from your way.
Engagement as a means of deterrence
is always a first best go to option. I say
that because sometimes people are new.
Better for them to have a good experience,
than to get immediately soured against HIVE.
If/when you publish, please send me the link.
I'll definitely send you a link as our policy develops.
https://www.proofofbrain.io/hive-150329/@scholaris/proof-of-brain-update-voting-governance-and-new-changes