No but it does take more effort. Minimally more I'll grant you, but more. It is friction and the interface is not designed to work for that use case.
From reading your comments it's clear that you think this is not a solvable problem. But is that the only reason you oppose this, because you think it cannot be done? Or do you agree with self voting in some fundamental way? I'm curious.
To be honest, I'm torn. I agree that putting large amounts of money into the ecosystem should reward you with stake. I further agree with Sean-King's logic that a Steem Power that didn't let you vote for yourself would be worth much less than one who does. I'd guess as much as half or more. It's hard to get away from what the results of that might be for everyone.
My main objection is indeed that this will not stop the issue. It's like trying to create a complicated system to ban trolls on Reddit. They'll just make another account in 3 seconds. I feel like you will only punish the "dumbest abusers" and all the sly ones will simply get an even larger ratio of the haul.
But, another aspect to why I object to this issue is that I think there is much more severe (and clear cut) rewards abuse happening in Trending which is literally locking us all out of the best spots on the platform. I posted about it, but nobody seems to care:
https://steemit.com/curation/@lexiconical/exposing-advertiser-circle-jerks-in-trending-reward-pool-rape-and-bookingteam-com
I mean, take a look at the business tag in trending. It's all BookingTeam.com junkmail, with the same crew of auto-upvoters.
I feel like the Sheriff of Nottingham Forest chasing Robin Hood even worrying about self-upvoters. At least they paid in and gave the token value.
Incidentally, I have my own biases and I also want to retain the ability to self-vote my content, given I have put nearly $50,000 into Steem.
PS - Thanks for not just muting me as your compatriot did, btw. The reality is we all want the same thing - the rewards pool going to reward actual content creators. Our disagreement is about regulation and motivation, not intent.
Firstly, you're welcome. It takes all strokes and styles 😜
I fear this is far too much the motivation of users here. It's like the goose has just started laying golden eggs and everyone is thinking "why not?!"
But really we all know this is a glitch in the system that has to be corrected. Can you honestly imagine self voting continuing as it is now? I'm preparing stats on this and be sharing them soon. @sean-king imagines we are all rational and I saw you were right to tentatively disagree on this point. People have burned things down to the ground for a less lucrative payday.
Self voting of larger stakeholders just shows new minnows that they're even farther from reaching great SP and influence. If these guys at the top can basically pay themselves there's less for them. Though maybe I'm wrong and they will actually want to be the rich guy paying themselves too. It will all be aspirational though as no one will be able to build up their SP except by buying in because there are much less votes going outward to others!
Okay we're really taking this on board, it's a big point a lot of people are making. While I thought initially that some movement towards a solution would be a step at least (i.e. removing self voting as an operation) that it does not also deal with sock puppets is crucifying us. We're working on a proposal that would do both.
For the sake of argument, how would you react if I told you we had it solved for both cases? Are you too tied to your bias or could you see yourself supporting it?