I like the idea very much, but of course I'm not blind to the challenge it would represent to implement such a thing. However, I've been thinking about something very similar for a while and maybe there is an answer somewhere in the middle that might be just as effective and not as psychologically towing.
Ok, so hear me out... Let's say for the sake of argument that @reggaemuffin believes that @helpie is not doing a good job and that it needs to come down in ranking, right?
Well, if he would downvote straight out helpie, it would probably create some friction between the parties there, and thus not be beneficial to his own efforts. We never quite know how strongly a stake holder might feel about the support they give a particular witness.
But what if the way the "downvoting" would work, would be as a way to negate the vests of a particular user towards a particular vote.
So, let's say he would go to @scipio's witness vote list, and negate @scipio's vote towards helpie with this stake. This would have the same effect, reduce the amount of stake pushing helpie up, but it would not be a direct line of "attack" per say. And, as silly as it might seem, it would be less taxing psychologically.
I don't know, even tho the coding of such thing would be more difficult, the effort might be worth it.
Interesting thoughts!
I just updated my article with the added proposal to reduce the available slots from 30 to - say - 5. Thoughts?
Yes, I like that too... seems more reasonable.
Yup, that's what I like about proposals / idea sharing and learning about what other people think about it: valid concerns spark new ideas to deal with those concerns, which as a whole improves the proposal and thought process.