This is ambitious and I would love to see some kind of agreement or consensus reached about what constitutes "malicious". I have been downvoted before a few times. It was always a question about distribution and not a personal attack. I accepted the fact and moved on.

My comment or my post was "over-rewarded" in the eye of a certain stakeholder. There was nothing malicious about it, they just felt like some rewards I was currently set to receive should be returned. Did I like it? Not particularly.

The @haejin issue is the one cause for concern with this proposal. Once we have had the downvote rules set, it sets up a very simple form of abuse. 10 easy low effort posts with maximum reward from another user per day, not plagarism, not spam, just low effort posts... often. Without the ability to downvote, this user and voter would be able to make out like bandits while making the trending page look like a joke. I feel that there needs to be room for checking abuse, and this gets very grey and very dirty, and end up malicious. I am not sure how these standards should be set.