Some Supreme justice said something like - "I don't have a definition for porn that is all inclusive, but I know it when I see it."
I like the Atty General idea where maybe 100 55-70+ reputation people can downvote and other people can nominate who needs to be downvoted. (sort of like the witness program) The gray areas will always be gray, but a lot of trouble is easily nipped in the bud this way.
I come from the perspective being new and possibly trying to get mom bloggers and authors and health professionals to come put their content on steemit. It can't be the wild, wild west or they will not want to be here.
Sadly, we have plenty of examples of how representative government fails miserably. That is what that idea would replicate.
If you provide a system that can be taken over or abused, it will, ultimately, be taken over and abused.
But now you have thugs at the top if I'm getting this right - which is worse?
Anyone that throws in enough money to get more SP can become a whale as I understand it. That means you can have unethical or ethical whales. I've been thinking about this topic all night and formulating it into a post of my own.
Those who are ethical and seek to further good ideals need to compete with those who are unethical and that seek to further bad ideals. It is a battle, not a balance, and good people need to seek and use power to the benefit of their causes.
If they do not, only their enemies will. That leaves some ideals as lost.