Thanks for the reply.
Now I'll start ranting..
The reason that do a test before code it, is it's really hard to get some code done as you want, perhaps just my opinion though. You see @dantheman upvoted without a comment. The coding is not hard. The first question is, is this experiment worth coding, as a hard fork or soft fork? The second question, is to reach a consensus. Besides the coding work, if implement it as a soft fork, we need to convince all the witnesses and miners; as a hard fork, we need to convince 17+ witnesses. Lots of communications are needed here.
For the range, actually the n^2 algorithm starts taking effect on a post when total voting weight reaches 800MVest. Or around 400K SP. So that's the first target. When people are piling on same posts, and when there are bots, it's easy to reach that.
Okay that is good information.
So IF me and others can help convince witnesses, talk to Dan, and actually work towards doing something would that be something you'd be interested in? Not saying it can be done. I am testing the waters.
All I know is that experiments with no consensus among the target audience are not really accurate information. Like I said I approve of WHAT you were trying to do. I think it is an experiment that needs to happen. Yet it needs to be something that you don't have to police to make it happen. It needs to be free of outside influences. So that sounds like a soft fork, or hard fork. I'd think something like this would definitely be a soft fork if it is doable, and yeah seems like in code it is likely throwing in an AND statement in a couple places with Steem Power < cutoffpower for whether UP VOTE or DOWN VOTE work or not.
So not tricky code in this case.