A recent proposal from @trostparadox has brought about another solid discussion regarding downvoting.
This proposal relates directly to the Proof of Brain tribe and proposes the following rules for downvoting:
Valid Downvote -- downvote of a “Proof of Brain” post or comment for any of the following reasons:  plagiarism (requires documentation),  failure to properly tag NSFW (not safe for work) content, or  any action defined as ‘bad behavior’ via a tribe-approved ‘community consensus’ protocol. For a downvote to be considered ‘valid’, a comment must be placed as a reply to the offending post or comment, explicitly stating one of the above reasons, and providing a link to any necessary documentation (e.g. evidence of plagiarism).
Malicious Downvote -- any downvote that does not meet the definition of a ‘Valid Downvote’.
The proposal then suggests rules to govern downvoting:
RULES -- (Proposed Rules to Govern Downvoting within the “Proof of Brain” Tribe)
Malicious Downvoting of any “Proof of Brain” post or comment is hereby prohibited.
First offense will result in a warning (which will be issued as a comment to the downvoted post or comment -- the offending account will be directly tagged in the comment).
First subsequent offense (after issuance of a warning) will result in the downvoting account being muted for a period of 10 days.
Second subsequent offense (after issuance of a warning) will result in the downvoting account being permanently muted. However, if the second subsequent offense (after issuance of a warning) occurs before the 10-day mute period begins, the 10-day period will be skipped and the downvoting account will be permanently muted.
Alt accounts will be muted as well (after a detailed review of each suspected alt account).
I find this a really difficult proposal to support. For example, If I downvote using my account to remove HIVE and it is also attached to POB I would be 'breaching' the proposed guidelines. If I don't have an alt then using my downvote would breach these proposed rules. I have always said that it is your stake and you can use it whatever way you want. This proposal is essentially telling stakeholders how they can use their stake in respect to downvoting. I often see some posts that are on trending and are going to receive a large payout for a post and perhaps the quality of that post doesn't deserve such a large reward but gets autovoted by accounts? Do these types of posts deserve such large rewards? It's probably not my place to decide but as a stakeholder, I should have a choice to decide.
If I breach these rules or want to legitimately remove rewards from a post I feel is over rewarded.... I could have my accounts all muted from the POB tribe and not be able to receive any POB from posting.
As a stakeholder can I continue to receive curation rewards and downvote users regardless of being muted? If so, muting someone could just create a huge downvoting vaccuum of sorts. Pissed off stakeholders could do some damage and maliciously downvote users and do some real harm to the tribe.
If downvoting is such a concern, why not just remove downvoting all together? If an account keeps breaching the rules and plagiarising, etc. then those accounts should be muted, not those who downvote others.
I see why the proposal is being made, but can see how the mechanics of the DPoS system could easily be then manipulated to create more chaos.
These are my opinions.
Thanks for reading.