After reading your post and this comment, btw, I think I have one primary criticism. I suspect @smooth had effectively the same problem with the post, which contributed to much of his expressed rancor.

You assume, without backing it up with evidence, that a difference in results automatically speaks to a biased or unfair game. It is possible that you are correct, but without evidence, it could speak to one of two things:

1. An unfair game
2. That the individuals performing better have a more effective strategy.

Now, in a very technical sense, these are, in fact, the same thing. The fact that the game being played is biased toward a particular strategy is what makes the strategy objectively good. But when you talk about bias and unfair advantage, you imply a particular causation. Specifically, you imply that the rules of the game were designed to give specific players an advantage. However, the very opposite might be true.

For example, imagine you are watching a game of no-limit hold'em. One professional player is playing against 8 individuals who are recreational gamblers. Over even the medium term, absent some very unfortunate luck, the professional player will almost always be winning.

Now, you might say "This game is rigged! The professional player is winning all the money". And, in a sense, you would be correct. The game of NL Holdem is, in fact, biased to reward the professional's strategy (he tightens up out of position, cbets, punishes limp-callers, etc) and penalize the recreational gamblers.

But when you say "the game is rigged for the pro" you imply that the pro's strategy predates the game. This is untrue. The game came first, and the pro developed a winning strategy. It would be pretty unfair to change the rules in the middle of the game to attempt to cancel out the Pro's edge. The rules were there to begin with, and he put the cognitive effort in to discover and refine an effective strategy.

Also, at the end of the day, its pointless to attempt to revise the rules to deprive the pro of his advantage. Because the whole reason he has that advantage in the first place is that he's better at everyone else there (or willing to work harder) at developing an effective strategy.

@smooth and the other whales who have what you would consider a disproportionate influence have it because they invested a lot of time, effort and thought into the development of a curation and posting strategy that gives them that disproportionate​ level of influence. Isn't that the whole point of making curation a game?