A very interesting framework you laid out here. It makes sense to delve into such thought process.
I think the idea of a reward/penalty system does have merit. The quorum style voting you mention also could increase the overall utility of the system.
Here are a few ideas:
In addition to yes/no, another layer could be added for the rewards. This is where a lot of the contesting often comes in. So the quorum would be responsible for coming up with a percentage if acceptable content.
Could their be a penalty added to those who use stake for personal vendetta? Perhaps if one flags too many posts (downvotes) and the quorum goes against, there is some type of penalty to that account.
Just a couple more thoughts.
Let me put two Facts in Balance:
1. Attacks are real
Without moderation, there will be professional attackers and they will make good profits. And yes, there is no White or Black Knight coming to rescue us from the malicious intents of people who want to game the HIVE systems.
2. Base Layer Censorship is real
A couple of People who orchestrate themselves in Discord can wipe the range, influence, and rewards of others. We've seen that and it's a terrible thing to happen. Human thoughts and senses are just interfacing with the world and we sometimes have a hard time finding common truth. The attempt to get along has to be able to fail, without failing its participants.
Therefore, it's very wise to tent to a grey solution with percentages.
--
That being stated, it takes energy to run such systems of moderation and human-controlled energy always follows value. The flow of value is modified by the moderation that gets its value back from the flow in moderates, eventually, following that logic, I believe that any moderation system will fall into corruption.
Moderation systems need to be redundant and should compete against each other to create balance and make it possible to let corrupted moderation systems fall into "disgrace".
Thinking about it, going deeper into Tibes and Communities is an obvious solution. Make it less about the nature of the intention behind the public post, let the free market of ideas and innovation decide where true value can be found. That means HIVE as a single point of reward needs to be balanced against competing tribal-tokens with their own rewards/censor ethos. A well-managed Tribal reward system should always have a higher yield than the base token reward system, we know that from the DEFI space. The idea to find a rewards solution by thinking about it, is so to say, a wrong idea.
Maybe I've lost the plot, just thinking out loud with my keyboard here.
I think negative feedback for over-flagging is a good idea.
If you had a cohesive enough community you could use this kind of system for positive rewards as well. But in a large online community I think there would be too much unrelated stuff a random user wouldn't care about.