After a bit of back and forth with Marky, I have to write that I don't disagree with you. The stigma of the DV is incredible, however.

Initially, I think the approach was to remove the DV altogether or require consensus for all DV's. The problem there was that I would have had my legs cut out from under me when searching for plagiarism or other types of fraud.

I see now one flaw in the proposal. If YOU are also protecting the system via DV'ing over-rewards, then you and others must also have some sort of standard that should be defined in the proposal. For example:

• Whale upvotes an article < 1 paragraph at 100%. Rewards are 100 POB
• Multiple responses to whale gives no feedback. DV applied to reduce rewards.
• Multiple whale votes now for same types of articles. DV's continuously applied.
• Account is now...muted? Who knows. Currently there is no penalty outside the DV.

Questions we'd then need to ask is: how much is too much? What's an acceptable reward? We'd have to bring some objectivity to the subject, if that's even possible. Well, I think we can at least all see that if a post is barely a paragraph, the rewards shouldn't be that much.

Now, the proposal gives room for changes, but because DV for your area isn't defined that means you'd have to wait for a change. Any amount of time with your hands tied behind your back is too long.

I feel I'll also have to address the elephant in the room too before I can get some traction. I'll need to define both malicious upvoting AND downvoting - Christ, with verifiable examples too I guess. It's almost like I can't get to the next phase without addressing that topic.