Personally, I'd rather see more community and tribe focused moderation, with a polite and professional teams put in place by each project.
If a proposal is funded and I assume it will be, I'd suggest a published protocol including definitions "Reward Pool Abuse" is subjective and absolutely isn't enforced in a clear and defined manner. What exactly is abuse? If you can't define it clearly, you can't enforce it fairly.
Also please focus on education vs. labeling everyone names that don't mean anything, like spammers, farmers, etc.
Good Luck on your proposal and while I disagree with some of what you do, I also acknowledge that downvotes and some moderation are needed, however, it can be done in a polite and professional manner or it so shouldn't be funded by the Hive Development Fund.
I agree with you 100%. It is way to subjective and always a personal thing.
Personally, I am always confused about how something can be " reward pool abuse" if it's not a self-upvote.
So other people decide to value whatever.
And if someone disagrees, simply downvote. The Blacklist thing and all that stuff makes it confusing and removes the right of the stakeholders to vote/downvote whatever they want.
Phishing/malware links is good to fight against, but there are other too that are behind this.
I see the spaminator downvote on so many good user accounts, back in the day, if I saw that downvote, I wouldn't have touched the post. However, now I just assume "someone did something that 2 or 3 people decided was a new rule".
It used to be you had to really do something harmful to attract attention from Hive Watchers, but now I've seen team members telling people what language they can post in, how many times they can post and even using too many tags, and while I know being politically neutral is mentioned, there is clear evidence on the chain, that might be a goal, but not a reality.
The scope is ever increasing and the result is a community that doesn't understand the "rules" and feels "worried" about posting in case they break some rule. Most well adjusted people aren't interested in being micro-managed by a small group of people, thus we run off middle class casual users and attract those who are "hungry" enough to put up with it. It's a complete "fun sucker".
I'm fine with individual users using their stake how they want, even when I disagree, but a community funded operation, should hold it's self to the highest standards.