Their irrefutable arguments are that:

• giving higher rewards for curating won't magically make for better curation and that thinking it would is retarded,

• also argue that now that curation can compete with Bidbots on ROI people will just delegate their stake to curation trails and not care for anything else, because people are retarded

and

• that otherwise stakeholders will simply spam vote because why not, they won't even post because a vote they give out will reward them as much as a post they put out, it's 50/50 after all and "it puts equal weight on both"

and finally that

• steem power should be simply there for Resource Credits/to be able to transact daily on the chain with any and all dapps

Before we can get to how astute all that is:

The proposed changes wouldn't be a problem if all they think about SP is to have enough to transact but the proposal would be a problem if they think that bots are good for capitalizing on the demand for exposure (very astute indeed), and anything that can compete with that, such as curation trails, or even organic, free-range, hand fed, curation would be cause for concern to them (because those things would be the death of steem demand obviously)

Frankly that's why anybody would care at all about what other things sp can be used for, because of some perceived or real negative impact on what they think sp "should" be used for.

There is no end to the extraordinarily intelligent fellows that will join in and encourage it and they are so respectful that when they do they won't even take a figurative swing at the development, stakeholders or both either outright calling them stupid or incompetent, or at least insinuating as much, instead they focus with Vulcan like prowess on articulating their unassailable positions:
.

it places the same weight on voting as posting. I can't believe that they are so stupid/wilfullyblind(another way to say how stupid or retarded someone isn't)

(#seventyfifeoutofnothing), right?

Fin.

---

^{I think this is what happened, for most if not all the other imbecilic nonthought retards. They heard this proposal and almost immediately made up their mind that cutting author rewards is a bad idea by reasoning (or reading some other retardo saying so) that with less rewards people will not create content, or something along those lines.. and by whatever reason though (wink, it ends with fucktarded) they avoided using the same reasoning for honest curation, because obviously enough, without competitive rewards people will stop curating (and with curating being less profitable than delegating to a bidbot people will sell their votes), which means that content is not rewarded and that the potential for content to be rewarded is ever diminishing (as more and more people cave in and vote sell), ergo the weight to create good content Vs to cheat and publish shit content that one buys exposure for in a bid to draw in a bunch of suckers and leeches that follow bidbots around, is far greater, as is the weight to vote indifferently by delegating to a bidbot, but Instead of all that thinking and considering(retards, FYI), they reasoned "simply throwing money at curation won't make curation better" (which magically-as-all-hell works for creating content).}_{maybe they never got to the obvious connection, that engaging in good curation is a contribution that ought to be encouraged as it benefits the entire system, especially content creation, and should be even more encouraged than creating shit content to self vote and vote buy on, and what they did instead is called not considering, and sometimes, like this time, it s called "they don't know what the fuck they are talking about",}

which is exactly why it's amusing to see these extraordinary individuals accuse the ones who have been discussing this for years, of doing.

RetardedAF, that is called Projection as well, they projected their retardo onto them, yeah, they're the stupid ones, the ones who hardly ever considered the implications of the proposal, they're the fucktards, and I'll let them reflect on how it is so:

muh voting rewards doesn't make muh best better muh voting lol. No shit Sherlock(aka retard), that only works for creating content and just about everything else.(obvious sarcasmball) They can't see that.... No idiot, they(stakeholders and development alike) see that people are discerning, clever and outright mindful of their money, they don't think like a retard at all:

• people are idiots

Or:

• giving them more downvotes will turn otherwise amicable folk into savages wielding rocks at each other (because people are idiots)

And:

• that giving them a way to compete with bidbots and self voting by curating honestly will ruin steem because now that curation is so overpriced people will be completely indifferent to who or what they vote on (because they are idiots)

_But..

I mean, they are complete morons so it makes sense to think they act as morons, and that's if the morons in charge don't notice the idiocy of making content and voting equal weight, this ain't boxing.

Now, retarded af and not considering things to a reasonable extent, retardation is defined as what?

They think that

• curation is overpriced or priced just right/good enough, despite that curation is largely self voting/vote buying (indicates both a demand for curation and scarcity of curation).

• less rewards for content creators is baaaahd, despite that more than two thirds of the votes are bought/paid for, so those aren't "rewards", and the less than a third of the remaining votes will continue to dwindle down to nothing at the current rate, but why try to get 50% out of something when you can keep having 75% out of nothing.

• and consequently seem to think that bidbots are good for content creators, consumers (wink) and curators alike, which is as retarded as can be, why I can call them a sophisticated savant retard since they appreciate the laissez-faire aspects of bidbots (and how great that all that demand for Steem is going into the hands of a few for what otherwise was naively meant to be shared freely among many and meanwhile encouraging good content discovery while also promoting and supporting it along with honest curation, which is much more important than content creation for the demand for steem).

And finally

They are probably oblivious of the fact that the other communities who have adopted the unique incentive structure that we have here have changed curation rewards to 50/50 and their reasons for that, but while ignorance is excusable, not considering the largest audience in their trite nonsense about the doooooom of stuum, --=the content consumers=--, The Demand itself, that is not. It should be the prime directive to any such argument or position: how do you get the audience to invest.

Which is some heavy duty retardation:

Speaking about the death of Steem with retard-strength laser-like-precision avoidance of the failing demand for Steem or it's largest audience, is about as inconsiderate one can be, which is a nicer way to call someone a retard.

Considering that consumers will not consume shit that is bought and paid for by shitty ass people (most of whom are one kind of clown or another as it is by the nature of the proposal that those are attracted to it) is as basic as it gets when "predicting the end of steem", and these moronic individuals probably think that bidbots are a natural consequence of such a system, much like I think considering the consumer in a system would be a natural consequence if one is concerned about the system. The retardation could be compounded then, as they may think that bidbots, cheating, are great because of the constant trading volume, or whatever "means"(prostitution) justify the ends(satisfaction).

Either way, retarded as fuck or very retarded as fuck, the lack of consumption is clearly evident, ever since bidbots took over in the late first half of 2017, traffic has kept dropping and hasn't recovered since, while just a couple of months previous to that, the traffic had exploded directly correlating with the engagement buzz that was created by increasing the votes by 10x-15x or more what they were worth before and which probably lead to the bullish demand for Steem soon after (less than a month if I remember correctly) and that was exactly the hypothesis of the Whale Experiment and the only reason for increasing the overall value of votes by curbing voting weight at a 500mv.

But my vulgar language offends the retards, they undoubtedly want me to coddle them and not express my cruel thoughts and opinions, to take my time when I call them one kind of retard or another, like not considering anything really in what they opined about.

Fuck em, they can go hug a tree listening to whatever their people, the retards, listen to, maybe some "people are retarded, take away their flags" anthems(whaleshares ftw), as far as I'm concerned there's no excuse for opening one's mouth without having a clue what the fuck they're talking about, and if it's a measure of the other person, either politely ignoring them, or nicely hand in hand taking them through the steps where they fell short in their reasoning and assessments instead of calling them retardo, than I'll be less than that and be contently so because my ethos regarding education is that those that seek shall find, as those that question and question well will find answers, but what they did I consider prime example of whack ass dumb idiot retarded-ness projection and I'll end by saying that by the golden rule, if their opinions of people in general is that they are retarded/stupid/dumb/inconsiderate/and or evil-et-all, it follows that they(a group I am part of) ought to think(consider) the same about them, and if my thoughts are offensive it's only a direct consequence of their offensive opinion of people in general.