Ganging up, and/or paying to take more rewards from the pool than what the community freely votes to you shows a lack of class, imo.
If what i am saying isnt selling in the open market i dont join a gang, or pay a bully, i suck it up and try to think of other things to say.
These are the facts of steem.
Either you say things folks want to vote for, and not against, or you work harder to gain an audience.
Big pharma's pill isnt helping.
The sooner the newbs are apprised of these facts, the better.
And anything that softens this reality is counter productive.
A crutch.
There is barely any voting power left to be used to curate let alone curate freely. Curating for content is going to diminish more and more over time when people start curating dapps for distribution of tokens.
This isn't much of a "gang" than people sharing a similar view of what kind of content they enjoy reading and writing and wanting a more fair shot at earning stake through their content than what someone like a dev may be getting just for having coded a bid bot a year ago.
We could go back to the math that attracted readers, and rewarded 'popular' content, rather than keep the math that rewards spammers scamming the investors?
I'm afraid that it's become obvious that stinc, et al, would rather reward themselves than make a viable platform, atp.
As for ganging up, it is what it is, you got to do what you do.
I don't refuse votes of folks just because they come in a pack.
It's when you refuse to vote folks that don't join in your reindeer games that an issue is raised with me.
The newbs that don't know the math are easily duped.
I agree with that, and yep in a perfect world the incentives to curate would outweigh those of selling votes.
Ready to lead a community fork?
Lop off the problems all at once?