I read 
This is not always, or even often, negative. I quote myself and still very much mean it here:
Steemit has reawakened a part in the majority of us the world has said has no value. When was the last time any of us has had to dig deep within ourselves to amuse/entertain/inform/delight/etc. Life has taught us it is not rewarding to dig below the surface of ourselves, steemit has rewarded us for doing just that
This is a shared feeling for many, and I argue it is the main reason many are still here and fighting, myself included. In reading her article I started to think about other behaviors also incentivized by the platform, and possible simple solutions.
Scammed
Reading her post, I began to think how the structure of steemit itself really causes a lot of this. Wether the source is an AI author or a Playmate model, nobody wants to see the author rewards going out in a way that's not seen as beneficial to the future of the site, and as a result our own investments.
Curation/Author Rewards
Are these the reverse of what they should be? I have made arguments in posts that this should be increased, I can't honestly think of how that change could have resulted in a different outcome for earlier accounts mentioned. When I read
I am using some numbers from a post of 
Using that statement alone, does it make sense that his vote would grant him $50 in SP, while granting $75 in liquidity?
What If
With curation rewards as they exist today, it is a "Game Of Kings". I have used that phrase before, and meant it to be a little scathing,
Today.... not so much.
For a vote to have the power to effectively garner curation rewards, it means they've contributed. So why aren't these the rewards paid out in SBD?
Authors, their contribution will make it a viable site, doesn't it make sense to tie their interests to it?
Using Dan's vote as a reference point through this, let's imagine his $200 vote granted him $50 SBD and awarded $150 SP. It places the immediately liquid rewards on the curation and makes it a more desirable goal, possibly enough to reduce their need to power down. This helps them get the liquidity and return on investment deserved and calms the masses who see powering down as abandonment.
An author might choose to power down earlier than they might otherwise, as long as they continue to provide quality work and grow their followers, they shouldn't deplete what they use up weekly and is ultimately the goal.
I would think under this model, we might have kept our Playmate around for more than a couple posts. Post totals would have resulted in $140(ish) weekly instead of $6000 today. That makes a difference.
Conclusion
It is the highly liquid author rewards that make it the target. It reduces out need to really police all new accounts as the rewards they are to get, only become of value over time. Whales perhaps won't be required to power down in order to recoup on their investment, or invest in further development, and cause panic amongst the minnows. It increases the value of SBD by reducing the amount and allocation of them. Maybe it also allows us a chance to just accept a user for their work.
It's just a though, I like it though.
What do you guys think?
Here is a link to the posts I reference in the above post:
Curation Rewards and Voting Incentive
Artificial Intelligence Has Made $16,000+ In Blogging Rewards. What Is The Future of AI on Steemit?
Hi! I am the first Playmate with more than a million followers to blog on Steemit!
And of course the picture all posts need.....
SOURCE: http://quotes-and-fun.blogspot.com/2013_08_01_archive.html
P.S.: This is something I have read lately about using pictures:
Here's what I learned about Fair Use:
It DOESN'T MATTER...
if you link back to the source and list the photographer's name
if the picture is not full-sized (only thumbnail size is okay)
if you did it innocently
if your site is non-commercial and you made no money from the use of the photo
if you didn't claim the photo was yours
if you've added commentary in addition to having the pic in the post
if the picture is embedded and not saved on your server
if you have a disclaimer on your site.
if you immediately take down a pic if someone sends you a DMCA notice (you do have to take it down, but it doesn't absolve you.)
NONE OF THAT releases you from liability. You are violating copyright if you have not gotten express PERMISSION from the copyright holder OR are using pics that are public domain, creative commons, etc. (more on that below.)
So, can we quit flagging people for this? There is zero liability to the platform it all falls on the author, and citing the source does nothing to validate it's use.