My goodness you are lucid! I am so glad I get the benefit of your considerations.

Aside from some expectations of witnesses I don't think are mete, I vehemently agree with most every word you have written here, and didn't know I did until you said it.

"...conjuring up the end of the world (extreme on one side) or drawing a utopia (extreme on the other)..."

Hey! You do read my posts! LOL

"...you need a police. Who then reports violation to a mature committee, who then contacts the suspect, who then have a talk, who then clear the case. All of it must be transparent and not behind the scenes, as you rightly pointed out. The payment for the police and the committee must be worth the time and work invested. The documentation of the executives must be well written and thoroughly done by the best standards. The police ought not be the judges, only the ones who refer supposedly spammers and plagiarists to the committee."

Gah. This truth sticks in my craw. Nonetheless, it is true, so I'm choking it down. As much as I don't want a 'police', sorting plagiarism and tracking spam takes resources that require dedication mere content consumers aren't providing, and can't. What that means is that HW and Marky are understaffed (and HW is overpaid because of it), and there needs to be - as others have mentioned as well - a formal statement of what is and isn't spam, plagiarism, AI generated content, and so forth, and teams of competent people to serve in the various roles necessary to properly execute policing functions.

I don't know what the procedures have been heretofore, but when scams arise, actual police may legally be required to be informed.

You have substantially changed my perspective on this matter, and I cannot thank you enough for doing so. I hate being wrong, and now that I agree with you I am right again! But, can we have juries of our peers instead of professional committees or judges? I agree we need competent investigation and detection, but there will be matters of judgment, and it seems to me that juries are a strongly justified mechanism for rendering judgment, guilt or innocence, upon presentation of professional investigation and defense by the accused.

Also, once you have institutions, you get corruption. The professional police and investigation committees are going to be infiltrated by scammers seeking to influence investigations, so they can get away with scams. Juries are much more resistant to institutional corruption that judges and police IME.

Thanks!