I’m not in denial as much as I’m suggesting a path forward which would expose it clearly. If asked “Why do you vote for X?” and the honest answer is “Becuase they pay me in bananas / sexual favors / Slim Jims / pieces of paper with dead people on them / piles of coke / (whatever)” then it becomes clear. If they lie about it and are inconsistent, I think over time, that becomes clear to the community also. If in the off chance they have a legit answer, then we all understand more. I’m simply assuming good intentions first. If they don’t want to talk about their reasoning and are unwilling to justify their vote with a rational response, then what you’re describing becomes more clear to everyone and in a way that makes as few assumptions as possible. Innocent until proven irrational.

The recent call-out of @ranchorelaxo is an example of what I mean. It’s telling that he/she/it did not defend themself (yet) but instead @haejin did.

I agree, looking to improve the mechanism is the best, long-term answer. I also think we have to work within the system we have in the mean time. I’m also not sure what technical or system solutions would improve this activity since it’s a common thing we see in most systems with humans involved. It’s possible a better [identity and reputation system](https://steemit.com/life/@lukestokes/privacy-identity-and-human-flourishing) could help, and I think that’s part of what SMTs and their Oracles may provide. The “reputation” number we have now is silly if we have actors on the system that many are frustrated with which hold the highest reputation on the system.

As to moralizing, I get what you mean, and I do fall into that trap quite a bit due to my upbringing, but I also look at it not so much in terms of good and bad but in terms of long-term rational self-interest which values oneself as part of a whole and irrational short-term decisions which harm others and oneself in the long-term.