Honestly, I just looked again at the SWP abstract:
"Steem is a blockchain database that supports community building and social interaction with cryptocurrency rewards. Steem combines concepts from social media with lessons learned from building cryptocurrencies and their communities. An important key to inspiring participation in any community, currency or free market economy is a fair accounting system that consistently reflects each person's contribution. Steem is the first cryptocurrency that attempts to accurately and transparently reward an unbounded number of individuals who make subjective contributions to its community."
So, Steem is a "blockchain database" of which Steemit is a front-end website.
It acknowledges that the key to inspiring participation is a "fair accounting system that consistently reflects each person's subjective (very important word) contributions".
It then goes on to confirm again that Steem "is a cryptocurrency".
Further, it "attempts to reward an unbound number of individuals who make subjective contributions to its community".
I perceive your argument as wanting to divorce capital investment from getting a proportionately "fair" response in determining what "subjective contributions" are worth. You seem to think that you need to tell capital who it can reward (at least, that it can't reward itself), and that is "fair". You want to enforce your subjective view with bots automatically, and possibly delegated SP you don't own.
I submit to you that this violates the white paper, and you are using the "crab bucket" mentality argument dismissed in the white paper:
"Eliminating “abuse” is not possible and shouldn’t be the goal. Even those who are attempting to “abuse” the system are still doing work. Any compensation they get for their successful attempts at abuse or collusion is at least as valuable for the purpose of distributing the currency as the make-work system employed by traditional Bitcoin mining or the collusive mining done via mining pools. All that is necessary is to ensure that abuse isn’t so rampant that it undermines the incentive to do real work in support of the community and its currency."
"The goal of building a community currency is to get more “crabs in the bucket”. Going to extreme measures to eliminate all abuse is like attempting to put a lid on the bucket to prevent a few crabs from escaping and comes at the expense of making it harder to add new crabs to the bucket. It is sufficient to make the walls slippery and give the other crabs sufficient power to prevent others from escaping."
You are trying to put a lid on the bucket. This is what they told us not to do. I don't believe smackdown bots is what they meant with giving the other crabs sufficient power - that power wasn't given to you, you "created/took" it with programming skill. I believe it's pretty clear they meant flagging here, since they coded it in. That's why I think a flagging power could help, because then the disincentives to do your fair share of community curation are gone.
I submit to you that that is subjective, and though I am willing to be convinced, I have yet to see an argument proferred that specifically addresses this fact:
Why should subjective standards on self-voting, that the community is clearly torn on, be applied here when the whitepaper specifically tells us "abusers are doing work too, even by self-voting and spamming, not unlike Bitcoins PoW" (paraphrase)?" (See page 17-18 of white paper.)
Can you give me one logical, non-idealistic reason for why my investment of $50k and someone else's investment of $1k should differ only in my ability to give OTHER people money? Why invest, then? (Please don't act like markets aren't totally selfish and gains driven, "you believe in the platform" is not an answer.)
Why? Why could I buy a stock and vote on increasing my own dividends, but this is wrong?
Do you realize that Steem was partially created to AVOID financial control after Dan got divorce-raped for more than half his after-tax salary?
I am not OPPOSED to your viewpoint fundamentally, but I feel you have NOT ESTABLISHED it. Furthermore, I have attempted to make us into "allies" by pointing out what is in my opinion far more clear and flagrant abuse with Trending, Booking Team, failures with economic disincentive in the flagging system. These are much bigger problems we should have already forgotten about self-voting for. You may notice that a number of (potential) witnesses have already done just that:
https://steemit.com/flag/@aggroed/i-will-not-fight-a-flag-o-war-i-d-rather-play-a-voteo-war
I perceive that you still remain far more focused on Self-Voting. If so, why? If not, agree to disagree I guess...
There's one thing you definitely can't disagree with me on. I am advocating for non-control, and you are arguing for the ability to control the actions of others. Which of those philosophies do you think is more popular, in cryptocurrency, and on Steemit? Which one do you think should be the default, and which one requires substantially logical arguments and consensus to implement ethically?
Which one of those philosophies would be supported by the oppressive US Goverment, and which by The Dalai Lama? (OK, cheap shot, but that's gotta be a minor bitter pill to the cohesiveness of your philosophy.)
PS - I guess the white paper is telling me to drop the whole BookingTeam thing too, huh? Doh.