@clayop, I'm flagging this because IM(subjective)O it's silly and potential harmful for the platform. Your recent activities focus mostly on @steemed and @berniesanders, actually. It feels like a revenge act from your side after the two witnesses unapprove you and you lost your top witness spot because of that. That kind of negative activities should be avoided totally. And again, IMHO that you as witness have more important things to do to contribute to the platform than stalking people. Kindly regards. Aizen.
Flagged for the same reason. This is divisive trolling. The idea that constantly making negative posts going after other users and introducing some sort of innuendo they are doing something wrong is somehow going to add value to the platform is completely wrong. It does the opposite and I'm flagging to avoid rewarding something that is harmful to Steem/it and to my investment.
Also, this action is completely appropriate. If an account has too little to qualify for the sharedrop (for example, 6.9 SP or 99.9 SP without activity) then the SP in that account is excluded from the sharedrop, arguably unfairly. By topping off the accounts, it prevents that. This is being a smart investor, IMO. That @berniesanders is a smart investor and has maximizing investor value (including his own) guiding his actions is a large part of why I support his witness and conversely actions that damage the platform and are hostile to investor value is why I do not support @clayop's witness, nor these posts of his.
I don't understand what is wrong with trying to maximise your earnings. I would assume most people would do the same. Is it a crime to make money now? The whole bloody platform is based on it - it's cryptocurrencies after all.
These kind of personal fights need to stop it looks really childish and will scare away new users. Also crying scam on everything harms us all.
Since given the limited amount of sharedrop, their maximizing earnings decrease all others profit.
Yes you already made that point and I get it. How is this different from anything else in life?
All of this accounts have > 7SP and almost curation rewards. I hope @berniesanders just insuring. Will you curate posts in Golos? I know you understand Russian.
Available time is a factor. I'm watching Galos though, and interested in the experiment.
Thanks for your support
Regarding witness vote, in fact I was revenged by some of the witness whales because I publicly discovered their similar voting patterns (See block 5178553, 2016-09-22 01:29). The backlashes happened a day after within a ten minute by three of them (See block 5230964, 5230995, 5231092).
This is sad that discovering potential harmful activities is considered as a potential harmful behavior for the platform. IMHO, these witnesses first have to stop this kind of negative activities not to make any unnecessary debates in the future.
You disagreeing with how stakeholders vote does not make their votes harmful, and you have no objective basis beyond that for claiming that it does. "Similar voting patterns" is not evidence of anything harmful. As a stakeholder I'm entitled to decide that my votes will be cast in a manner similar to another user, whether that other user happens to be @curie or someone else. You repeatedly posting about it and insinuating that people voting in a manner different than what you think is best makes it "potential harmful behavior" is harmful behavior.
"potential harmful behavior" here does not mean the similar voting pattern, but the actions I mentioned above.
About your comments, anyone can decide to follow other accounts. But if the one is a big stakeholder and has significant influences in reward distribution, his/her "lazy curation" can end up with over-valued rewards in few authors as well as under-valued rewards the rest of the others, which is not desirable for the platform.
My point is exactly what @smooth stated above. I have seen a lot of same discussion about valuation reward. Again, over or under is just your personal opinion. I personally find some posts on trending are over-valued, I just don't upvote it anymore, simple. In a social network, you can't forbid anyone to like or dislike your post, exactly like in real world. Even if you don't like it, just don't bring that negativity out.
"Over-valued" or "under-valued' is nothing more than your opinion. Posting hostile trolling posts pushing your agenda on it is harmful by creating a negative tone on the platform.
It is not any one particular issue, it is that nearly every post or comment from you pushes a negative agenda, of "greedy", "supicious", "harmful" actions or some other accusation or innuendo generally supported on nothing but your own opinion.
This divisive tone and focus does not add new value to the platform, is entirely the wrong way forward for Steem/it, and my votes will reflect that.
My terminology can be wrongly chosen since I am not a native speaker. But it should not be neglected why these actions happened.
@clayop, according to your finding about "suspicious activity", you really should read @jesta's report about that (last part): https://steemit.com/witness-category/@jesta/jesta-witness-update-2016-09-30