Not sure why I'm bothering but might be a good recap of the our conversations the past few days.
I'll start by responding to some of this text, even though the thought that you're naming yourself a victim of bullying is funny if anything.
Your whole definition of what a bully is only reflects on the way you behaved, upvoting and downvoting isn't being a bully, especially not if the upvoter/downvoter has a reason to do so and explains their reason many times, a reason that a majority of stakeholders/community would agree with, especially given your history, but I'll get there a bit later.
The offending account Down Voted my content, not based on whether it was good or not or on the quality, but out of spite at me.
It wasn't out of spite, it was due to you defending the very thing that got you in trouble to begin with, this to me shows that you'd consider doing the same thing in the future and that had you not been caught due to receiving plagiarised content you would've been doing it all along. I think that deserves a few downvotes and I'm sure many others would agree. So yes, in this regard it had nothing to do with the content but about you as the author, your history of abuse, ghostwriting schemes you didn't acknowledge until after the fact.
Regarding spaminator, I know how badly it is maintained which was the reason I asked why you were being downvoted, both by spaminator and another bigger downvoter who I've seen downvote in regards to spaminator/hw/other. I asked because I wouldn't want a valued member of the community to be bothered by an outdated blacklist that may effect others to cast downvotes if the issue had been dealt with or if HW had been asking for too much to repent. My curiosity was with the best intentions, given your history of wanting to create a proposal that may benefits hive, etc.
About your ghostwriting examples, stock images can't be considered the same, it's the main part of the post that's receiving curation that is the important aspect. An image or banner, even though it's recommended to source, isn't what curators/stakeholders reward you for if the post is about the text. I don't see people just posting stock images they've paid for, not mentioning they didn't take them and expecting curation in return to cover the costs(?)
I didn't say you were scamming people, as I read your apology post and understood your intention that may have been good but performed badly. I said it was scammy behavior, the same way the ghostwriter scammed you with plagiarised content (you didn't receive what you paid for/rewarded the author in fiat) one could say you were scamming curators in that they may have rewarded you for content they thought you created. It's really not that difficult or deep to understand.
If your content is from a ghostwriter, disclose it, same way the community would assume you'd disclose if your art was generated by AI or your text was generated by AI or if you're posting content a friend created years ago (even though he gave you permission to post).
The question is why would you not disclose it? What could come out of not disclosing it and what benefits would you receive by not disclosing it? Pretending you're putting in effort to generate content? Pretending you're a better writer than you really are?
It's quite baffling to me that you'd defend this hard the right to not have to disclose if content wasn't created by you, on your personal account where you have a history of creating original content and sharing original photography. The only assumption I can take from this is that the intentions were to deceive readers/curators, especially since you didn't disclose your intentions of hiring ghostwriters until after you were caught and especially since you never bothered disclosing the content wasn't yours and especially since you keep defending the right to not disclose it so much so that you'd rather risk losing your last bit of reputation and dignity on this platform and fight in any way you can to maintain your ideals that this should be okay "because it doesn't say so in the ToS".
This isn't Steemit, this is delegated proof of stake with community etiquette/rules enforced by the community, if a majority of the community think something is frowned upon and not accepted, this case being something I am pretty sure a majority think this way (and there were a lot of comments about this in your apology post you mostly ignored), then the community is going to defend the people trying to enforce what the majority believe. It doesn't matter what you who may be a minority think about this, it's just something you have to accept or leave.
I'm not going to get into the examples of how ghostwriting could be acceptable because this comment is already getting too long, but I'd be interested in hearing the thoughts of others regarding this. FWIW I'm usually pretty okay with namecalling and do so myself occasionally when I think people are just being difficult for its sake (or when they're the ones to start as was your case) but I'm pretty happy I refrained from doing so here cause I'm unsure of your mental wellbeing and your reaction to a downvote followed by a few others based on your actions after.