Well intentioned. But I have issues with some sections.
Which central authority decided 10% was the right amount of rewards that should go to your own content? Why is 10% the right number as opposed to zero or 50%?
How exactly would you propose to "not tolerate" this behavior and achieve loss of rewards?
Not sure the proposal for flagging/downvoting is well thought out. Sounds kind of like an ivory tower idea. In practice I'm sure it would result in a lot of tit for tat nastiness, that certainly isn't useful for the platform. I can see in practice that would just devolve into a Yahoo type forum, where there is a roughly equal upvoting and downvoting; but the quality of commentary on yahoo posts is zero. The situation devolves into name calling. Why would we want to replicate that on steemit?
There is a different way to look at upvotes you don't agree with - people are just different. Their upvoting something I personally don't like isn't WRONG, its just different and I don't think it is right to downvote for being different.
If you want a set of etiquette rules that represent good policy, you are going to have to put in something about bots.
What about the bots that just upvote the list of "currently popular" bloggers, since it is known their posts always go to the moon. Is that good practice?
What about the bots where you delegate some SP to them, so they can make sure your voting power is always fully used and they apply to the posts most likely to make the biggest pay outs, as opposed to the posts that they spent even 3 seconds reading and felt were worthwhile. Is that good practice?
"Use your power to reward content creators appropriately" WTF does that mean? Who decides what is appropriate?
I believe you are well intentioned.
But I wonder if the focus on "here are all the rules from HQ" isn't motivated by lack of confidence that a decentralized system will produce good results without control mechanisms from HQ keeping everything under tight control?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds
Check it out.
Nowhere does it say only 10% of the rewards should go to yourself. It says that i think 10% of your rewards should go to comments as a guideline, but when 100% of your rewards you assign to comments go to yourself, then it's problematic.
Bots are programmed by people and should just be curated the same way. I could include that bots are allowed but should serve a positive purpose though.
You, me and others do ;)
Everything in this article is my personal opinion and should be treated as such. At this moment there's no intention to make this a prominent guide or policy whatsoever.
EDIT: I edited the part about self-voting comments too much.