The bidbot issue is a really tricky one...but at any rate, i would rather we limit their influence to purely financial.

On the second point, i couldn't agree more. On the @haejin conundrum, part of the tweak would be to limit the extent by which a single account can lift your REP. The higher the reward share for example, the higher the extent by which any given account can influence the reputation score (but still to a limited extent). @haejin would need to invest in several alt accounts which would be practically impossible.

Otherwise the way its is @ranchorelaxo will lift his reputation to high heaven,,,and there is nothing we can do. What is saddening is that more than affect his/her rewards, given everyone else is below his/her reputation, our hands are basically tied and cannot impact on his reputation, which for me, more than reduced rewards, would have been the 'loudest' and most 'visible proof of community 'effect' against his behaviour.

@haejin seems aware of that, and understands the moral blow would be if his reputation was in deed lowered.....which is perhaps why despite the downvoting, he relentlessly continues and refuses to bark down...well aware the farther his reputation, the harder it is that it will ever be affected. It seems to me that he is as much interested in lifting his reputation as in the rewards.

Otherwise, the idea of a time based index, partly in the sense as you out it, that the REP declines if one's presence and 'community approvals' are not consistent, is part of the wider solution to resolving the REP issue.