The logic of giving a witness your vote? If it weren't for witnesses, you wouldn't be able to transact on the blockchain. Perhaps you meant giving @fulltimegeek your vote? I feel that those who hold the skills to run a witness server and carry out the responsibilities of a witness, have put in the time to learn about the blockchain, and who care about the network and community, deserve a vote.
And I would hope that anybody who is considering voting anybody for witness would go check them out. This post is not his witness application, and it's certainly not his complete bio, so I would recommend doing some research on him before deciding whether he deserves your vote.
I completely agree with you on this. My comment was in response to your emphasis on the "blessed list". Running of such bots has nothing to do with a witness and should be taken as a personal initiative. To me, considering such benefits while voting is akin to bribery. I ain't against such initiatives but these shouldn't be taken into account while voting for a witness.
I see. I was simply mentioning his bots to illustrate his commitment to improving the experience on Steemit for minnows/plankton. I certainly didn't mean that his bots were the reason to vote for him. And I didn't say that by voting for his witness you would receive votes. In fact, nobody should have thought that.. at least I hope not. That's not how he decides who goes on the "blessed list" lol. It's all about content and engagement.
And yes, it's a personal initiative, but also one that should be recognized as the good deed that it is. Sure, he earns curation rewards for the votes he gives out. But he'd be making a lot more by upvoting his own content. So yes.. it's a personal (and charitable) venture. But again, it illustrates the type of person he is. And that's one who cares about the user experience here on Steemit.
And THAT should be taken into consideration when deciding a witness. Not whether or not you're on his "blessed list", I hope that makes sense.
Well, to each his own! I consider "self-voting" to decide against voting a witness but the opposite is just a normal way to function here. So I don't think it should be looked as a criteria for voting a witness. But everyone has his own criteria to evaluate ...nothing wrong with it!