Thanks for taking the time to write that.

Rules, no rules and flagging

Our perspective is one rooted in the blockchain's dynamics. I think we are in agreement about one fundamental thing (although it is essentially unrelated to the topic): the dynamics need to be improved. I would support some kind of alternate power curve, like n^1.1, and 50/50% curation rewards. They would improve things overall. By the way I think the reason why there is no real movement in these areas is because of upcoming SMTs, but that's another conversation.

The rationale for @sadkitten is however that no code changes can fully account for all abuse vectors, and there will always be paths to optimally extract rewards within any algorithmic configuration. This is also expressed in your statement that following rules does not make people moral, and I agree with that.

We intend to step in at the point the system cannot account for, for some of these paths, but our project cannot deal with all of them, as some commenters have noted.

Morality and "right action" is at the core of any discussion about "what we should do", even if the terms are unfavorable. I do not support ideas of forcing people to do what I think they should do, but I'm very interested in what I should do. I am not afraid of coming together with other people on ethical projects (whereas some people would should "collectivism!"). It is wise to recognize that one's actions affect other people, and that while we are all free to act what we do in our own freedom impacts other people.

@sadkitten is not a law and does not create a rule. It is simply an expression of disagreement of the SP contributors (it's a community funded project) with what the bot identifies as the most selfish accounts. The bot algorithm is not arbitrary, though it is indiscriminate and does not avoid whales, project accounts, or even lower SP holders (minnows).

This is where culture comes in. It is actually down voting (which means it's the opposite action from an up vote, as opposed to "flagging something for review" as it implies), and there is no particular blockchain level rule on use, you can down vote as much as you want. However on top of the blockchain basic code = law rules people naturally establish social codes of conduct. Steemit Inc. initially seeded this (badly in the case of naming downvotes as flags) with some guidelines, but the culture has continued to develop. This culture is not homogenous though and there are a variety of viewpoints on this.

Why down votes work

You mention that you prefer "reasoned ostracism or incentivizing the preferred behavior" to counteract abuse. Shaming has it's place, though it can be very cruel so we try to keep our bot's comment very literal and clean, without highly emotive language or sensational packaging.

Then there are two ways to affect the culture with your voice. Supporting stuff you highly agree with, and opposing stuff you highly disagree with. @transisto is not only involved in @sadkitten but in a large number of philanthropic and entrepreneurial activities, with a lot of finance behind them, you have no idea! I support what I can with my limited stake and refrain completely from self voting. But we both also oppose what we highly disagree with and don't limit ourselves to positive support. This is pragmatic. I've come across the "only positive" argument before and it just doesn't stand up when we're talking about the stuff that you most disagree with.

The reason is that each highly selfish account is just a drop in the sea of accounts, and supporting the entire sea does not appreciably diminish that drop's incentives to continue the disagreed with behavior.

Down voting works because it deals in the problem domain directly: rewards. Leaving a comment is all well and good, but bots do not read comments, and highly cynical operators do not care about public perception and feel no shame. They do however feel it in the wallet when expected rewards are not forthcoming. The importance of this cannot be overstated. It's why we're having this conversation.

I do however monitor what people are talking about around @sadkitten and always try and engage with actual people. That's another reason we are talking. I hope you appreciate that unlike your service, I do not gain directly from @sadkitten, nor do I from the significant time put into having this conversation throughout the comments on your post. I hope that is some indication of the honesty with which I undertake this task.

Bottom line

For another week, @steembay is on the list of @sadkitten 's identified highly optimal self voters. You say you are "so much" against self voting but I'm afraid talk is cheap, your actions show this to be a falsehood, by your own admission.

In my opinion the problem is with your business model. Don't forget that anyone can down vote your self voted bot posts, you cannot only account for @sadkitten and then move on. Any business or venture which can only succeed by self voting it's posts is essentially a charity which may have it's donations reduced at any time. I suggest you reconsider your approach, or live with and recognize the inherent instability of it.

Practically however @sadkitten is not against self voting per se (although personally I much more am). The project is just opposing the highest, most optimal self rewarders. @steembay continues to be one.

Finally your points that people are inconsistent in their reasoning (asking 1000 people), and ideas about slowing the growth of Steem with flagging are not convincing to me, though perhaps a more detailed argument would be of interest there.