So, I had an experience that may be relevant here.

I once quoted a user's blog post during debate with that user elsewhere. His reaction was to immediately edit that blog post, deleting the contents and replacing them with a single, content-free sentence.

I spent a couple of minutes attempting to access the unedited version. I did a little googling, tried to figure out how one does that, read a Steemit post asking the same question...could not find an easy (or even a hard) way to do that. I quickly gave up.

It's got to be possible to put this information somewhere that only the most dedicated users could dig up...the kind that would already suspect who was doing this type of thing anyway.

My hope was to silently nullify the curation rewards, rather than flag the post rewards. Suppose I have 10% of the stake in the platform, and I (hypothetically) think Jerry Banfield has enough/too much exposure and I don't want him getting any more curation rewards. I could "blacklist" him down, not unlike voting a witness up, and 10% of his curation reward for voters is simply reassigned to the reward pool.

Some other formula based on stake could work. I'd suggest at least 2X since if 50% of that platform wants to blacklist someone they must be thoroughly curated already. 3X is probably still conservative. At 1X, I'm not sure this makes enough of a difference for people to bother to do it.

Does that make sense?