I think people use it to argue/reason about both intentions and outcomes.
Your method ignores sock-puppets, and whilst this is totally understandable in that dealing with that kind of abuse is a much tougher problem, it might nevertheless have the outcome of pushing abuse under the carpet, so it's out of sight but still present. With it in the open, we get to analyse the dynamics of the situation, and perhaps learn how to improve the more fundamental aspects of the blockchain. With it pushed out of sight, the problems besetting the platform are conflated and more difficult to learn from.
That's very much besides the point of shortcomings in your algorithm, but I'm certainly aware of the limitations and shortcomings of my current sadkitten algorithm. I'm working on a collusive voting detection and scoring algorithm which will probably inhabit a different avatar than sadkitten. One bot cannot and should not be required to embody a total solution, probably there is no such solution.
I do disagree with the test tube approach to abuse. This is dynamic system and you're not going to get a lot out of standing from a distance with a magnifying glass, one must act.
I look forward to what you come up with for detecting collusive voting.