'Policing' is a wrong conceptualization. It implies use of force and exercise of authority. In the context of Hive, the term is almost always used as way to spin and complain by people who don't like how others vote: If you like it, it is responsible downvoting, if you don't like it, it is harmful 'policing'.
Voting is not and never will be policing.
Vote up and down based on your subjective opinion of value to Hive and make the value of your Hive go up. For small payouts on comments and such, it hardly matters. Rewarding engagement helps Hive. But when large and repeated payouts drain a lot of rewards and don't do much to help Hive, that is a problem. Be part of the solution.
What's the goal of downvoting ?
Isn't the goal to modify behavior ?
Isn't a downvote a penalty ?
Distributing penalties is the role of POLICE (or vigilantes).
If someone owns stake, the reward pool doesn't care if they use that stake to self-vote or to vote for your favorite posts.
The reward pool gets "drained" exactly the same in either case.
I LOVE RULES, I JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE RULES ARE.
I ALSO LOVE UNIFORM ENFORCEMENT.
The effect is to reduce rewards on that payout. Which you should do if your opinion is that the rewards being paid out on that content are too high.
No need to read into it any more than that. It certainly isn't necessary for it to modify behavior to be worthwhile; the reduction in rewards, which certainly happens without needing to speculate, is enough. So no basis to say behavior is the goal. Reducing payout is the goal.
Why does anyone care if the "payout" is "reduced" ?
What positive effect does this manifest ?
Other payouts are increased, and those other ones are a better driver of Hive growth. Short term the reward pool is zero sum: Every milker or dumb payout costs every more-worthwhile payout some money. Long term the reward pool is positive sum: Rewards directed to the payouts which add the most value to Hive drive up the value of Hive and create even more reward payouts going forward.