I know which dialog you mentioned and even though I support proposal, I was not satisfied with line of defense by accused party.
Sincerely I wished the accused party actually provided some cogent form of defense, if they had done so, it could have provided some form of vote of confidence on the people who are voting for the proposal. Unfortunately the accused could not and it's really disappointing.
Personally I vote for only witnesses that are vocal on the chain, has significant stake on the chain and are not scared of criticism while prioritizing the chain before any other things.
Partially because of this I tend vote only for validators with significant stake on Hive.
This is actually a good way to gauge the ones that are putting in some decent jobs on the chain and I buy your idea as well.
This is a beauty of this system IMO. I hope it will work out eventually, it's all experimanetal :)
I think the system should work out eventually. I think it's flawed but I believe it's flawed because of the way it can be exploited