@quillfire

I have read your proposal and, by and large, concur. As I do with the contributions of our esteemed fellow PHC members, @nickyhavey and @blockurator.

I shall not comment on the other long thread. That should be comment enough...

Because of my absence, and having gone from posting virtually daily, to once a week - if I'm lucky - anything that I'd consider of substance, I'm not really able to comment on the "new" steem. That said, I posted a bit of what I consider "fluff", using SteemPeak, on Friday. Its performance has, like Allen's experience, exceeded expectations. Also, because of my absence, my "curation" (still a term I'm not totally comfortable with), has also been minimal.

On the downvoting -

My approach is an all or nothing one. Either abolish it, or have qualified downvotes and a tribunal. I like the notion of a randomised and rotated jury of one's peers (we don't have a jury system in South Africa), and I like the suggestion of anonymity those on jury duty - from both the broader Steem community and each other. That brings me to my final point: I agree with Allen that the jury should be a larger number, and I would also go with an odd number so in the event that there is a potential impasse, there is a 50% + 1 option. Allen suggests that there should be a two thirds majority, but not what mechanisms could be employed should such a situation arise.