>So to facilitate Gambling on Steemit, I propose we put a ban on voting-games by forcing them to decline payout and force people who want to gamble with Steem or SteemDollars do so with money from their own wallet instead of draining large portions of the reward-pool every day which truly does nothing good for the majority of steemians or the platform itself.

This is a long sentence, so I'll address this in parts.

>...I propose we put a ban on voting-games by forcing them to decline payout...

How will you force users to decline payout for creating/publishing a popular (or potentially popular) game? By flagging if they don't comply? 

But more importantly - why do you feel that such posts should *not* be allowed to receive rewards? Do the creators or the posts not add value to the platform? If they add zero value, then why do people participate? Why do they become popular? Surely, someone must value the content, otherwise they would not vote for it. So, how do we quantify this value and should this quantified value be the metric we use for rewards distributions?

>...and force people who want to gamble with Steem or SteemDollars do so with money from their own wallet...

The acknowledgement here is that this is *not* gambling. So, to eliminate a "gambling" problem (which isn't gambling) we must explicitly create an actual gambling alternative. I've seen the concerns being raised about gambling on the platform and how it's bad for business, so once this new *actual* gambling is created, will there still be outrage about Steemit now becoming a real gambling site?

>...instead of draining large portions of the reward-pool every day...

The "large portions" - if you're referring to SteemSports - was something under 5% daily, I believe, when last calculated. While this likely represents a number larger than any other user who would post four times per day, it is not a significant portion of the rewards. Since SteemSports is pretty much the only vote-betting game in town (with actual support), their popularity and earnings are skewed. So, they aren't "draining" the rewards pool - and there isn't anything *abusive* about how those rewards are earned. We can disagree with how high their rake is or how those rewards are actually distributed, but voting for those posts is no different than voting for anything else. It's a matter of subjective value/preferences for voters. Prohibition won't change that.

>...which truly does nothing good for the majority of steemians or the platform itself.

If it truly does nothing good, then users would not be supporting it. "Nothing good" would mean that there is nothing positive to gain from the games. But we know this is not true - objectively and subjectively. 

>It only make the account-owner fatter as he is raking in 50% of the author-rewards every day - many times per day.

Now, this is something that I have mentioned before. I disagree with how the account owner - in the particular case of SteemSports - distributes the rewards. It has been billed as "massive SP distribution game," but the distribution hasn't been very massive. If I was running the game in its current format, I would...

1 - Change the presenter/editor rewards.  Presenters of the posts, since they are essentially on a rotation (they typically do not receive more than one game per day), should receive a larger payout taken from the "editor's" cut. The presenters are actually providing the substance of these posts. The "editor" (there are currently two, I believe), basically plugs that presentation into the pre-formatted template. These editors can realistically "edit" 28 posts per week - or 14 each. A regular/active presenter authors maybe 2-4 posts per week. 

2 - Distribute the 50% SP author rewards from the posts. Since the presenters/editors are doing most of the leg-work - and since the posts are billed as "massive SP distribution" - I would be OK with distributing at least 30-50% of the SP rewards from the post, especially considering how high these post rewards have been in the past due to the number of whale "sponsors." 

For example: If a post earns $250 and the presenter/editor handled everything for me, I've made $125 in SP earnings. If my goal was to actually distribute SP for the community that supports my posts, then it would be acceptable for me to distribute $62.50 of those SP earnings. If I'm posting (not writing or editing) four times per day and earning those rewards, then I would be pulling in $500 in SP daily. Distributing $250 of that would be a great way to build my brand reputation and it would support my claim of "massive SP distribution." 

<hr>

All that being said - it's not up to me to tell someone else what they can or can't post on the platform. I can only voice my concerns and choose not to support them. Calling for bans or flagging content simply because I don't particularly like it will get us nowhere - especially when the most popular content is always the target. (And yes, I get that "popularity" is typically manufactured here.)  

You're not going to get widespread adoption as a "decentralized" and "censorship-resistant" platform by constantly calling for certain content to be banned, flagged, or sent to their proverbial corners. Use your voices. Use your votes. Support the things that *you* like. Let's not start the banning flagging wars before this platform even has a road map. 

Ultimately, this feels like a "trending" issue. So, let's just fix the way that the trending page presents content rather than ban certain content because it finds its way to the trending page every day.