I can see merit in your point here: that encouraging good behaviour is better for folks and society than restraining bad behaviour.

However, systems potentiate behaviours, some behaviours more than others. Simply allowing any and all voting behaviours creates a system that is but a reflection of extant culture and increases the power of propaganda and indoctrination to impact and mold culture.

SOC potentiates every possible combination of restraint and empowerment, allowing people to seek each what they consider optimal society. In such an ecosystem, I believe that folks suffering the effects of indoctrination (all of us) who can but understand some of that impact, but also feel there is a 'right' or better way to interact that they haven't learned, can seek along a continuum of communities for that right way.

Further, such a continuum allows for personal evolution and graduation from the first steps along a path to 'righteousness' to that glorious landing of fully realized human society all of us wish we lived in--but each define differently.

Given that we are all variously imperfect, and define perfection variously, there are gonna be bad actors. One global system just forces the most rapine to the top overall. SOC can prevent that winner take all result, by confining such rapine actors to rapine focused communities that the rest of us with no interest in maximum extraction eschew.

Such actors won't be members of communities whose resources are invested in systems better balanced, and dedicated to other metrics of optimization socially. This prevents utter megalomaniacs and psychopaths from controlling the resources of communities uninterested in supporting them, creating freedom from such actors oppressions that isn't possible in meatspace today.

That ability to create communities online can eventuate communities in meatspace able to counter oppression there, in time.

We'll see if Stinc can bring SOC to fruition. The power of money IRL to control systems, such as we see impacting Steemit, has been offended by @ned's mere statements. Were he intent on simply perpetuating and participating in hyperextractive economics, that act of stating opposition would not have been undertaken.

He may not be able to make it happen. It is, after all, a heretofore impossible system, but I can gladly await his best effort based on that evidence he is intent on it.

Not like I can do anything else, anyway =p