I would add, however, that if Dan were interested in giving himself a high reputation score, don't you think he would have made it so that he had the highest one? He does not in fact have the highest one, and myself and @tuck-fheman have a higher rep than Dan, so we could at any moment decide to downvote him. This reality doesn't align itself with excercizing greater control over the system by the ones who created it. If Dan was in fact not an honest person, he would rig the rep system, giving himself the highest number.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
It doesn't matter at all in the big picture, when company accounts are used to censor any conversation (as they have been doing and will likely continue to do) they please, regardless of community voting consensus.
This has already been proven by the actions of management using those accounts for this purpose.
Anyone believing Steemit as it exists currently to be a censorship free platform for free speech is sadly mistaken.
Please be aware that a downvote from you or @tuck-fheman can only bring about 10% of impact on rep score than a downvote from @dantheman, because he has about 10 times more SP than you.
His score doesn't need to be the top score. It just needs to be very, very high. It would be unnecessary and impossible to design a retroactive rule set that perfectly optimized for a chosen account without the need for obvious special cases.
It's great that you have a high rep, but it would have not been difficult to assign everyone the same score at the start of a new fork and allow reputation to evolve from a point where everyone has equal footing.