Preventing / curbing abuse, destructive behavior, and scams;
Thing is, i have the impression even that word: "Abuse" is not defined exactly the same way by all witnesses (Let alone regular users).
It would be AWESOME if witnesses create some sort of document where they stablish some minimum concensus about what, exactly, is consider abuse and other important topics. It wold be really helpful for the rest of users.
I'm wondering if a consensus is even possible. It's one of the reasons for @steemcleaners & @spaminator being two different projects though I am heavily involved in both. @steemcleaners tries to stick to the black & white types of abuse such as identity/content theft & plagiarism. I handle more subjective spam issues with @spaminator.
The main reason for that is if @spaminator strays into an area that a majority of the community doesn't support it won't reflect badly on @steemcleaners as much. It's also the reason you no longer see @steemcleaners commenting often about referral link spam. I think there needs to be a separate group for that as well.
My concern is that "grey area". It is a big deal righ now, specially with the whales that vote only a couple of authors, the use of bidbots and the "THIS IS TOO MUCH REWARDS!!" kinda war we just had.
All grey areas.
I don't know how good is this for investors and new users...
I know. If I personally had my own SP to do with as I wanted I'd be flagging some of it. The problem I find with the flag wars like the one we just had is that when it is done publicly it goes over board. Quietly flagging down rewards that someone thinks are over valued is a better way to go. Especially if there does not seem to be any proven abuse on the part of the person receiving the votes & flags.
On the other hand it doesn't draw attention to the problem.