Flagging looks tempting because people have no other way to express their valid opinion. And an opinion that a given post has earned too much in comparison to other posts, is a valid opinion that needs to be taken into account and not suppressed.

It's not about jealousy or crab mentality or anything like that. It's about a thoughtful distribution of our limited funds.

That's why we need two distinct tools:

• One tool for indicating something is wrong with the actual post. This is what flagging is about. Flagging affects both payout and the author's reputation.
• And another tool for indicating that something is wrong with people's reaction to the post. Or in other words, your disagreement with people upvoting a given post. The post is OK but it's overvalued - your downvote affects only the payout, not the author's reputation.

As long as we don't have those two separated, there'll be confusion, trolling and hurt feelings. Actually, I'm quite surprised that we don't have it already in place and that this simple concept requires so much deliberation.

After reading the details of @dantheman's proposal, I don't think his solution is adequate. If I understand it correctly, what he proposes is that somebody's voting power can be negated completely, not just regarding a given vote, and the negation will last for 7 days. Maybe this is useful to counteract trolls and malicious whales, but this does not address the issue I stated above. We need a way to counteract a single vote on a particular post/comment, and not to wipe out somebody's voting power completely.