Indeed.
Have you considered this option?
https://github.com/steemit/steem/issues/279
FWIW, the "opposition" (the same opposition threatening to go back and re-upvote the Grumpycat votes after flagging) knows it will stop their ability to abuse, and is against it:
nextgencrypto commented on Aug 16, 2016 • edited
This is nothing but another method for Dan to control who he wants to see earn and who he doesn't. I expect we'll see him and his inner circle stifling whales they wish to see stop earning as soon as this is released.
Just a reminder, this is being implemented because of the feelings of 1 person who will use his control over the witnesses to push through anything he wishes. Don't let it be disguised as fixing voting, he's trying to suppress accounts he doesn't agree with.
I’ve discussed it in other channels, but the main problem is that what will most likely happen if an account is blocked this way is it will power down. They will either cash out all of their STEEM, or power up a new account and turn it into a ‘wack-a-mole’ game.
For the most part, the same effect can be accomplished using downvoting, except it is easier to target specific behavior (rather than the whole account) and stop the downvoting if the bad behavior stops.
So, wouldn't it be better to half-screw them for 13 weeks continuously, than to do nothing at all? How is adding another hoop to jump through, and forcing them to go through power-down cycles not a good thing?
Why not just downvote?