Thanks for the feedback.
I will try to clarify the de minimum part and integrate it a little better. That was kind of an after-thought and it shows.
Personally, I am not a fan of consensus decision-making -- it's hard to have a robust process that is also relatively quick. I see that as something that will likely take lots of tweaking to get it right.
My idealistic 'vision for the future' is that we have an up-front transparency system that is added to every post so that before you vote on a post, you can assess the author's metrics, so that you can decide right then and there if there are reasons other than the content that you might not want to upvote (e.g. self-voting and circle-voting metrics, past rewards, and whatever else community members think is important).
Cool.
About the consensus, to decide what behaviours are bad behaviour is going to be quite hard, tricky and would take a lot of our time, that's why I'm suggesting each case should be treated on it's merits, if a person sees something he considers bad behaviour and would like to downvote it the rule should state that he brings it up for discussion to the whole Community and the community decides on it.
I'm also saying you should finalize a rule based on this to take care of the '[2] behavior determined to be improper via an approved community-consensus protocol'
Your author's metrics idea is also really great, though, I'd say we finish these malicious downvote talks and then you propose that next.