My feeling is that if the software allows undesired behavior than the algoritm(s) needs adjustment. Flag one spammer down and another arises to take their place.
Read the whitepaper, it talks that preventing abuse is not the point, and I agree.
Simply because real life allows people to kill others doesn't make any sense to punish everyone by making them wear full armor and weapons, if they want to or not. If someone think it wise to "use a software feature " to plagiarize work we don't argue that it was the software feature copy paste that is the problem, which is why I find it odd to argue that we agree on abuse, because you think the abuser is not at fault and you must have me mistaken with someone else because I don't think you understand what I said.
For example, and really only a random example, if the community does not think self voting is desired then restrict it in the software rather than downvoting someone about it. This change is expected in the next fork evidently.
For example, taking out self voting penalizes everyone and doesn't solve anything as now people will make another account to vote on themselves with, in turn it's crystal clear AWFUL, INCONSIDERATE, advice because the abuse will be obfuscated and it adds more spam with countless people making alts to vote themselves. Instead we have downvoting. Which is so awful it's almost as bad as that other software feature.(sarcasmball)
It's not the intention of preventing abuse, which ends up Only penalizing those that don't abuse, in a mentality that if the software allows to post child pornography it's the software that's to blame because preventing it only requires a comity to approve. You know why we have downvoting?
Thanks for your detailed explanation, @baah. One might aurgue that allowing 10 posts daily instead of 11 is penalizing the inmocent.... yet your point is well taken and seems very valid to me.