I have to write that this discussion is a bit beyond me for now. I didn't know the voting governance went so deep. I've been reviewing LZ's recommendations since he commented on them. I also appreciate oldoneeye's input into revising LZ's witness-list suggestion.

Post rewards are always a slippery slope. I've been working on fraud in our community through a "DV by justification" process for months now. I have touched on over-rewarded posts, but only at it's extremes where there was a logical fraud connection:

• Rewards on posts with "." as the content
• Duplicate posts
• Recycled posts

I can't get to the middle of the spectrum because there's no agreement...anywhere. I can't DV a post I disagree with because there's no justification for it or even a standard for reference. Can we even approach an agreement on rewards? Is that even possible? There are so many factors that go into an article's rewards it's difficult to manage the topic.

I can follow LZ's list pretty easily, but I want to drive people towards voting on making their own educated choices. Is there even a process to fully vet a witness's activities? Is there a way I can direct or educate new people on this process?

Anyway, thanks for writing the article and thanks to LZ for providing the list for review. It's always good to see how votes get used and how the people we elect utilize their authority. What I want is to make sure the right people are in the right place. You've shown me a weak area I need to address.