Its a special moment when you connect to a rant at a deep level, when you are finding yourself agreeing so hard (if that is even possible) you are wondering if you've been mind hacked. Well, just yesterday @paulag shared a post that I absolutely loved. Yes of course, we could add some nuances, a couple of caveats and some anecdotal couches, but I absolutely found it as effective as a bucket of cold water. Hence the infographic supplied.

Missing the Couches and Caveats

Some of the thoughts @paulag put forth might be hurtful to those who default to anecdotal exceptions. But, the idea that the rant was invalid because of this, might be a little too unfair. If you have not read her post, I invite you to give it a good read before continuing.

If you've returned from that post, and you've decided the color t-shirt you are wearing for this argument, lets continue. In my personal experience, I relate more to @paulag than anyone else on this platform. I spend quite a bit of time trying to help others grasp a long term vision for the platform and I find this work, this effort, to be essential to "protect" if you will, my own future. You could say, and you would not be wrong that my drive behind this is both selfish, and selfless. As an investor of Steem, I want this platform to succeed and thus, operate and act towards that goal in the way that I believe I can be the most effective.

The idea of sharing the long term message with other people is also because I would like for others to also partake of the beautiful possibilities to come. I've grown to love and I'm not using this word because its pretty, so many people on this platform over these past months that my connection to Steem, and my investment in all its dimensions is hard to estimate with numbers. I've made so many good friends, that the idea that we can one day be sharing a drink at SteemFest 18 with heads full of gray hairs makes me smile like a fat kid with cake.

You could call me an idiot, you could say that I need to grow up and I would forgive you for saying so. But, I'm not denying my own thoughts on the matter to fit what anyone believes to be "the smart type of investor".

However, this much is true...

The shame game is not necessary

And on this, on this very point I will give my dear friend @omitaylor her well deserved ninja points. What I'm trying to say is that because all situations are different, because in the end everyone has different needs, a different life experience, not everyone can or even should adopt the:

"Long term Vision"

But... you just contradicted yourself Meno

Yes, well no, well I did, but that is not the point. Anyways, if you allow me to explain it a little better and bring out some more nuance, caveats and couches, it will all make sense, I think. I like silly examples because it allows me to explain what otherwise my language knowledge impedes me from doing. So, in the fashion that seems to be a style, let me give this a go.

User X has 1000 SP on his account, he has been working really hard building up his SP for 3 months, but due to a mishap in life, User X needs $2000 to keep his home. What should user X do?

a) Well, man up, because powering down is bullshit.
b) Maybe power down a bit, but post a lot more to make up for it.
c) He should power down exactly what he needs and that's it.
d) Power it all down and take care of his life

If you are sitting there making a choice for User X, you just proved my point for me. Its not up to you, its not up to me, it's up to User X to decide his future. Yes, my biases and I lean towards (b), but that is me and my circumstances. I can't assume my mold of life applies to absolutely anyone else but me, because even In my own case I might be completely wrong. The mistake however, if I'am actually committing one, is mine and only mine to make.

What about my ways?

I also try to delegate as much as possible to small accounts. I do this for the same reasons @paulag and @abh12345 do it, and honestly believe that this is the best way I can help the Steem ecosystem. However, a time or two I've delegated to someone who did not have in "my opinion", his/her best interest in mind. Since I was the enabler of the situation, the healthiest thing for me to do, is to remove "me" from the equation.

I just turned into a very thin street, but we will make the logic cart get to the other side. What I'm trying to say is that if I decided to help someone, to help a User X do better in the platform out of my own volition, I also have the same right not to. Depending on the situation this could make me the proverbial bad guy, but in the instances where I would remove myself from the equation, I would probably have enough evidence to support my decision.

I'm not saying I'm going to tar a feather someone who is powering down, or anything that pathetic. I'm simply talking about cases where I've clearly identified a taker, someone who know only how to sing the "Me, Me, Me" song but pretends to know the lyrics to all the good ones. Without remorse, without shame and without guilt, I will proceed to make myself absent as an enabler. That's it, that simple. All this, I repeat if I believe that User X is acting outside of my preferred ideals.

The phone works both ways as they say. Does that make me a bad guy?

I'm revising my ways, Thanks Paula