Well, so here's the thing. This ENTIRE platform is a bit of a "pay to play" konundrum. So if you prohibit this guy, then you have to prohibit everyone from doing anything that affects the platform above a certain vote value.
Votes have just as much effect on the outcome as censorship does. It amounts to the same thing. At least these people have some method to the madness that appears to have an overall general effort to improve the ecology here and level the playing field a little bit.
Versus mamby pamby upvotes and downvotes that are unwarranted, or arbitrary at best. SOME level of governance should be agreed upon at least by witnesses, and if not witnesses, someone who can have the effect of the conglomerate.
In summary...I'm not entirely opposed to them.