You specifically told me at the time of the downvoting during covid that you agreed with azircon's choice to downvote me to zero and also laughed about the fact that the stake being used was your own and that there was nothing i could do about it. So, you can try to deny involvement but it doesn't add up.
This was around the time that Azircon threatened physical harm to someone on chain, apparently triggering a usa cop to appear and to intervene. Azircon also tried to intimidate me and literally told me to leave the Blockchain.. and for what? for basically nothing other than producing popular content he didnt want to be visible.
I dont think there is anyone on Hive who would be particularly surprised that I vote as I do, given the situation here.
The downvoted posts were fully in curangel's scope by receiving 3-digit votes by a single whale. The project has been created to improve reward distribution, and the content of the posts doesn't matter in the decision if the downvote was justified. So yes, I did agree.
My witness is not related to curangel other than that I coded the project and set the initial scope for voting. Of course you're free to not vote for me. Campaigning with whales, especially calling me a censor for cutting your rewards, is pretty petty though. Hat off, I didn't thought you could achieve that. I didn't really care to even investigate back then, and just enjoyed my free time.
Now I'm back, and boy am I surprised to learn the whole story. And I can be petty too!
You specifically said to me that you enjoyed that your own stake was powering the downvoting. I don't know your own personal accounting, but its reasonable to think that a substantial amount of the stake in Curangel came from your earnings as a top 20 witness. Even if it didn't, your presence in the top 20 witnesses further empowers you to carry out voting behaviour that I think is harmful to Hive's future.
If you want to look honestly at what the voting patterns on Hive are doing to public sentiment and perception towards Hive then I will be very happy to have that conversation. We have almost zero public credibility outside of Hive's own userbase at this point. Hive isn't even listed on any page I can find where decentralised social networking is discussed.
We also now have a Sequoia funded decentralised social network that has blatantly copied steem/hive, that is outperforming both of them.. This is a time to come together to solve problems, I agree - but that requires being open to changing direction and perspectives.
No-one is campaigning here at all. I received support in response to how I was treated on Hive and I use it as I see fit, for the good of the chain. It's nice that you were enjoying your free time with a big stack of tokens from Hive's rewards pools - I personally was virtually broke and trying to help a friend who was violently attacked on the other side of the planet at that time, then as I mentioned - returned to help my Dad as he died. I can't see you as a victim here in that context and I understand that you can't see through my eyes either.
Its unfortunate that you see me as being petty. I don't see my decision here as petty at all - perhaps you just have no understanding of the problems Curangel has caused both me and Hive. To me and to many other knowledgeable people, what I am doing is just common sense.
I am not unreasonable and I am also not out for revenge. If I was out for revenge then I would have just changed the voting strategy, since you already 'lost' more than I lost by not being the top 20. I'm not voting out of revenge, I am genuinely voting based on the evidence available on what I see as being best for the future of Hive's survival. Free speech is the foundation of this chain and somehow we disagree about how free speech works on Hive.
I already tried to step in to the situation with Marky and Xendal to try to stop the absurd voting war that was happening there. The war stopped, thankfully. The last thing I want is to be involved in one in any context whatsoever.
However, I will also not be intimidated or threatened without responding. If you acknowledge that Azircon's actions were out of order (I can post the URLs) and you acknowledge that nuking accounts is rarely the right option and definitely not the right option when the account owner has no control over the votes they receive... and especially when the content in question is literally intended to help save lives - then I will feel that we are relating in a more reasonable way and one that intends balance instead of antagonism. Balance is the first step to productive teamwork.
Sure I did. You're not the best listener, but I explained the redistribution mechanism that downvotes are multiple times. I got annoyed and started to make fun of you because you kept talking about censorship. Hive is censorship-free, votes don't change that. My API node kept storing and, on request, distributing your content.
It's also not good optics for new users when some receive regular big votes automatically, and most don't get anything. Which is where curangel steps in, by upvoting hundreds of users every month and shaving off some from big votes. You say you know 10 people who left because of us - I urge you to look through the replies curangel gets each day since many years and realize how many people we make stay.
I don't know much about azircon and his motivations. I'm not his mom. When he curated for curangel, I checked his voting once in a while, especially when there were complaints of course. All downvotes I saw which he issued were in scope. Again, with curangel, not his private account.
You're not the only one not happy with his downvotes, or his general behaviour on hive. I never agree with threatening people or wanting to drive them off the platform. We're all here to grow hive, not for personal power trips.
Nuking accounts definitely isn't the right option in most cases, and I have removed the ability of curangel to do that a long time ago.