"I've never seen a better example of a strawman. Please point to any example of anyone ever demanding equal outcome that has anything to do with Steem."

Well now, isn't that what the #newsteem policy of free votes is trying to do?

"How about you acknowledge the actual problem - Steem has hemorrhaged users, and that has kept a vibrant market for Steem from forming, keeping the price low. This is despite a trickle of rewards going to users, and the immense power of financial incentives. That means that the user's disgust with the flaggotry and profiteering on Steem has exceeded their disgust with Fakebook and Twatter, which should make the devs feel bad, because they are bad."

I do acknowledge the problem of hemorrhaged users, and I think the free flags and everyone running around using them will cause not only a hemorrhage of more users but also a hemorrhaging of stakeholders.

"Playing logical fallacy games isn't going to fix the problem, even if you feel like you won an argument on the internet. Fix user retention. Make users feel rewarded, not scammed, and that will fix user retention. How is self voting gonna do that?"

What fallacy are we talking about? Also, just an FYI self voting was baked into the original design UI. So if you do run across a stakeholder who bought more stake because of that design, then try convincing them what they're doing is wrong.

I say fix steem by correcting trending. Change downvote back to a flag. Call the upvote button a tip jar, and add a Reddit style up and downsort button which only serves to sort content. The upsort downsort buttons will accept all votes as equal, and allow only one vote per post and per IP address. The way it works: You read a post, and if you like it, you tip it and upsort it. If you don't like it, downsort. Upsorts and downsorts should be anonymous. I think something like this would cause people to fix trending on a daily basis. Also, people would have less reward envy with their in their secretly harbored expectations of a more equal outcome.