I think there's a moderately strong argument for sorting beliefs by badness-if-true rather than badness-if-true times plausibility

This seems to encourage Pascal's mugging. In fact, it's even worse than Pascal's mugging; in Pascal's mugging, at least the large amount of possible damage has to be large enough that the expected value is large even after considering its small probability. Here, the amount of possible damage just has to be large and it doesn't even matter that the plausibility is small.

(If you think plausibility can't be substituted for probability here, then replace "Pascal's mugging" with "problems greatly resembling Pascal's mugging").