You know, not every argument for altering payout weightings is political.
Rewards drive content creation, content adds value. It's similar to the velocity of money argument. Pay a minnow $1000 he'll probably go and write 100 more articles. Pay a rich kid $1000 and he might do two or three more posts before he loses interest.
I don't know. I don't want to get involved in hysterics, and I don't really care either way.
Ned and Dan own the site, they can do what they want with it.
Nobody cares if you power down. It'll take two years for you to throw your toys out the cot.
Why don't we just pay $1000 for a good post and not worry about who wrote it?
Because given the choice between two equally good posts, it's kinder to award your vote to the person with the greatest need, where it's going to have the largest effect.
Do what you want, I don't expect my opinion to change anything.
I just prefer to help the little fish.