[english] // [deutsch]
This is a small thought experiment into economy, markets, zero-sum-thinking, positive-sum-thinking, anarchy and why the hell this has something to do with Steem.
This post was inspired by the latest article by 
Some Definitions first, to clarify what I am talking about:
"Zero-sum-game" is the wide spread assumption that it is only possible to win, if at the same time someone else is losing. This thoughts are cemented in our minds from earliest childhood. Only experience and "real" education can free us from this thought prison. If we play something as children, e.g. card games, computer games or Monopoly, there is always a winner and a looser. This applies also in Sports. Always there is somebody who is better, who had more luck, better resources, better starting position etc. This point of view continues in almost every topic. On first view this is only logic and I suppose that about 95% of humanity would reduce the world into a zero-sum-game.
The opposite: positive-sum-game
If we dig a little deeper and again start at the situation "playing games", we can also state that most of us would play voluntary. The obvious goal of the most will be of course "winning". The additional goals that most are missing are that we want to socialize, we want to spend time together, we want to get appreciation and we want to learn how to handle the feeling having lost and also we want to relish in the feeling of winning from time to time, depending on skill and luck. In sports this is more obvious. The ancient Olympic thought always has been "taking part is everything". Sure the winning of an Olympic medal is the possible highlight, still the participation alone is enough reward for most. In a positive-sum-game everyone who participates is already a "winner" even if one does not end up first. The other way around this means that every decision a person takes has as a subjective goal the improvement of the own situation or the improvement of the associated group.
The difference between the two is widely a matter of perception and point of view, but they result in very different actions and feelings.
What happens on the psychological level?
Somebody who views the world as a zero-sum game will have a tendency to demand rules to ensure similar ways of living and similar results / rewards for all. This normally is called "equal opportunity" and it looks on first view fair and "good". In contrast to someone who views the world as a positive-sum-game, who will analyze his starting situation and will look out for opportunities to upgrade his chances and he will according to his possibilities look for improvement for his situation in the first place, but most of the time also for everyone in the long run. This searching and finding of possibilities looks at first glance selfish and is perceived as "evil".
Example economic markets:
If you reduce economical processes to a minimum, about the following will remain: Person A owns something (X) that Person B needs. Person A will give X to B if he gets Y in exchange.
There are only two reasons, A will do this: voluntary because he needs Y more than X or by force. You now can put almost anything into the variables. A has wood, B needs wood, A will give the wood to B for a sum of money. A has working power, B needs this. A is giving his working power to B for board and lodging. (Yes, working power is a resource, too.)
I will skip the discussion about ownership and how it can be generated. Still I will assume that something like ownership exists (even if a definition that suits everyone probably will fill several books)
My thesis:
A will give X to B only if he sees a (subjective) advantage in it, and Y is worth more to A than X. B will act the same way. He only will exchange if he values X more than Y.
Even if you add in force or violence, this thesis is still true, because A may value his health or life more than X. In any situation A and B will try to find the ideal way for themselves to make the exchange. Working fast, working perfectly, good quality, good price with lower quality. Inevitable this will tend to result in a balance between supply / demand and quality / price. For this reason alone positive-sum-game is productive. This tendency to balance only is disturbed by regulations, force, violence and a leak of information, all of these are the results of zero-sum-game-thinking. For this , zero-sum-game is counterproductive.
Flowing transitions
This process occurs daily several billion times, so it is easy to find uncountable situations, where somebody is feeling remorse about taken decisions (especially afterwards). The more time is affected by a decision, the more probable the feeling of remorse becomes. (think of marriage e.g.). Subjectively the zero-sum-game is more obvious, even if this totally depends on perspective. With a little distance every voluntary human interaction becomes a positive-sum-game.
Why am I harping on this?
I will lean out of the window and claim, that EVERY intervention in voluntary (unforced) human interaction will have as a result a shift from productive positive-sum-game to counterproductive zero-sum-game. This thought brought me (after many detours) to anarchy. From my perspective today, anarchy is the only functioning base for humans living together in the long run. Only one thought on this claim: anarchy does not mean no rules, only no leaders. Tolerance, social behaviour and all the other virtues can (and must) not be forced. This exactly is the difference for me between zero-sum-game and positive-sum-game.
How does this apply to anarchy and Steemit?
As a self-declared anarchist, Steem is a gigantic step in a direction that I really appreciate. Everybody can free and unforced celebrate free speech and try to get along alone or in groups. Finally we have a true free market, even if it is a very tiny one for the moment... HURRAY!
There are some basic rules, similar to the natural laws. You can upvote, downvote and the weight is depending on several circumstances. An article has to be composed by a headline, a body with text or pictures and a maximum of 5 hash tags. It´s possible to change and delete these posts in certain situations, but everything stays visible, or at least traceable. In the borders of these (virtual) natural laws it is now possible to move "freely".
Depending on the quality, visibility, timing and social networking (and several other aspects) a post can be rewarded with Steem and attention. Nobody is forcing anybody to write something. So we work in a free market where we find a tendency for balance between invested time, ideas, creativity and rewards (attention is a reward, too).
Steem and the blockchain behind it represent for me the purest form of positive-sum-game that I was able to find so far.
For some time now, I am observing a lot of people feeling remorse about their invested time for Steem, complaining about unfair distribution, cry about censorship if something has been flagged. Some complain about NSFW content, some complain about censorship on NSFW content. We all have seen the discussions. In this case an amazing solution has been found and a new social rule was found (no NSFW pics in the header picture and a possibility to hide NSFW content in the settings). In my opinion this is a quite amazing and good solution to everybody's problem. Fair distribution has been improved by guilds and trails and voting communities. Voluntary! Outstanding!!!
The connection to and 
?
In the first moment I really was irritated by Dan steadily flagging OZ. He had "played by the rules", he was literally at the right time at the right place. He developed the right contacts and is now profiting on it. No need for envy!
BUT (Attention metaphor incoming!)
Oz and his buddies are with us all swimming in a Pool. Dan and a lot of others want to swim, Oz and his buddies want to use the waterslide. For speeding up the waterslide and thus more fun, everybody of them takes a mug of water out of the pool and spills it on the slide. Some water is spilled, some water will vaporise in the sun, some will flow back into the pool. This goes smooth (no pun intended) for a while, but the water in the pool gets less and less. Dan as bath attendant decides to take action to ensure, that not as much water is taken out of the pool, so that those who want to continue to swim can do so. Of course this means much less fun for the users of the slide. Finally Dan and also the rest of us will have to decide for ourselves, who we prefer having with us bathing in the pool. Those having fun and draining the pool or those taking care that the pool is kept clean and full.
Dan is in a very strong position, so his doing felt somehow wrong to me at the beginning, almost like intervention or censorship.
At the end this decision is without doubt part of the finding of the balance in a free market place
The bridge to my thesis:
Conclusion
I don´t believe Dan has taken his decision easily, but it seems it was the best he was able to do using the given tools and "restricting" the rewards of Oz´s articles by flagging them. Oz had nice profits in the last weeks and of course he has every right to collect and use his rewards as he pleases (send the SDB and Steem to bittrex/poloniex). So it is completely unnecessary to take sides. The only thing needed is to think about very personal behaviour adjustments learned from this situation.
Personally, I want to use Steemit long-term and thus I´ll take only in cases of emergency money out of the system. I think that this is the best way to grow and maintain the (still) very small system "Steem". For the moment Steem is shrinking because there is only value flowing out and no value coming in. Quite some time ago I decided to make sure that I use my (irrelevant) votes mainly for 100% posts and to authors who do not cash out regularly. But this is my personal decision the thing that feels right for me.
Just let´s make sure that Steemit stays a positive-sum-game and that it doesn´t degenerate into a zero-sum-game. This means that we have to use the available tools and possibilities to create solutions and this means not to demand regulations for more fairness.
