Or 3. Rancho got rich off of haejin's advice and wanted to repay him.
It could all be innocent. So why not address it? Say that. Realize though, that his actions could be a detriment to the platform overall. I wonder how long he would have continued to reward haejin had the community not said anything? He (I use 'he' for simplicity, could be any other entity) seems to be able to read and speak English. Why not just address it publicly?
But why would he/she have to? That's literally the opposite of innocent until proven guilty. The rules of steemit isn't, hey, join this community but also you are obligated to defend yourself from any and all attacks and explain all your votes and content to the satisfaction of everyone. That's...super restrictive and controlling. Not to mention like I said, there are probably users on here who are just for the "buy and hold in case this because the next Facebook in 5 years" and care very little about interacting with steemit beyond that. If that's true, why should they be dragged out and accused and forced to interact?
Who cares? Why shouldn't he? It's his upvote. He literally paid into this platform, and steemit rewards him for that.
I think people came to steemit with an idea of a very fair, even playing ground and 100% meritocracy. But that is simply not true - you can buy steem, you can buy SP, and the platform rewards you for that. I'm not saying if it's good or bad, but I'm just saying that's literally how steemit is built.
Yes. But just as steemit allows him the ability to direct the rewards pool, it allows others to do the same. Why would you support his exercise of that use and not that of other smaller users to do the same?
I mean, honestly? Because the smaller users aren't offering me any value. Not saying they don't have value, they just don't offer me any value. There's no reason for me to upvote people for the sole reason that they're smaller users. If I think their comments or posts are informative/funny/etc., sure. But haejin brings me a lot of value, which is why I upvote a lot of his posts.
If other people find value in other users and want to upvote them, awesome. No one against berniesanders is against his ability to upvote people. They're upset about the flagging/downvote attacks against haejin and anyone else who stands up for haejin or criticizes berniesanders, many of which aren't whales and are much "lower" on the totem pole. Just today I saw speakyourmind downvote someone into oblivion on haejin's post for doing just that and then repeatedly taunt him by saying that he/she could do this all day "this is just one of my accounts." That kinda of bullying is what people are upset about.
Honestly, at this point I'm not sure what your argument is about. You started off arguing about haejin taking too many votes, then talking about how people should attack rancho instead, and then now you're asking why I don't support people upvoting. Those goalposts have moved mighty far from where we started.
I'm not asking you to upvote anybody. I'm asking why you don't support people downvoting Haejin to counteract a vote that they don't agree with.
The small users may be part of the reason you are aware of haejin, because they are responsible for his success...and that's all great. Before Rancho, steemit would be happy to consider haejin a success story. There were never any calls to downvoted him before. If he had the same earnings from different accounts, its doubtful that anybody would've said anything. Even if they had, they wouldn't be able to garner much support for it.