Speaking for OCA, in general I don't think there's much misalignment when it comes to what I don't think should be supported.

I'm deeply comforted in hearing that.

When it comes to people breaking rules, there's really no need to insult them or call them names or really be antagonistic in any way. We have tools to deal with these things that I think are pretty effective.

I think that a fair and reasonable point and an orientation we could strive for.

If someone breaks a rule because of negligence, we should inform them of the rule they broke and mute the post. Flags are optional depending on the severity or maliciousness of what they've done

What also needs to be considered and taken into account is that very often, what poses as negligence is maliciousness disguised, and hence not everything can be taken at face value.

Of course some things are so obviously bad they can be instantly blacklisted like ID theft, but copying another artists work isn't at this level and in general if credited would usually not be frowned upon in the art world.

Emphasis added by me, that's the key part, if credited.

While it's not something I'd support, I think categorizing everyone that copys someone else's artwork a scammer or plagiarist is a step too far and in the big picture, harmful for the user experience because this is how a lot of amateur artists start out and develop.

We can find a middle term perhaps in the term "RipOff Art"
(with the capital O ;)) or perhaps we can play a little with words and call it "RIPOff Art"

When it comes to edge cases and grey areas, I think we should lean on the side of tolerance and give people room to adapt. Posting someone else's art as your own or stealing someone's identity can't be a simple mistake or done out of thoughtlessness,

It also needs to be considered that adapted abuse, the adaptation abusers go through is often not productive or authentic, its simply them adapting the fraud tactics for it to fall out of the definition or detection range.

I think we should give people the benefit of the doubt until they prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that they're only here to do harm.

I think we can agree on "beyond reasonable doubt" and look forward to your reply. Im meeting you right in the middle.