If the @msgivings case was fraud, let's have some highly visible and whale-powered value judgements made about that

If I recall when @msgivings was uncovered as posting plagiarized content, there were whale-powered downvotes applied. I only did not downvote IIRC because the post was already heavily flagged and well below zero when I saw it. Otherwise I would have.

If you like the content, upvote it. If you don't like the content, don't. If you think it is harmful to the community or overrewarded then downvote it. That is what happened with @msgivings and that is what I hope will happen with any future harmful (plagiarized, etc.) content and that is what I'm doing with this post (which districts from evaluating content and attempts to shift focus to individual actors) as well.