You yourself question the premises by saying "the system can't work as it was built" and so you invoke rules. I take the same freedom in questioning: Are you saying that non participating in the downvote-actions makes a person a questionable up to a bad participant? Does this imply that they will face disadvantages even though they write in high quality (whatever that might be)? Does that not translate of being in service for the readers and distract them from the exhausting conflicts?

Do you see how this "must be a good steemian" leads towards corruption if someone even thinks (even if he is reassured otherwise) that he will be left aside when he is not a "good steemian, fighting for the good"?

To take part in actions which require detectives investigations skills to find out about using bid bots and multiple accounts requires totally clean records and credibility on the side of those who want to work on the regulations. So far I have not seen one big account "A" not voting for himself on "A".

Correct me, if I am wrong but that is the role modeling with a very high impact on how people perceive a system. Otherwise, they leave in masses and note it as "hypocrisy" in their minds. Even though, they have done it themselves. But from what I think it's like advertising for own content, not paying for the ad, but compensating for it instead. Which is the strangest thing.