To your response to me (thread limit)...
Yesterday someone made the same claim to me about @mrron and I looked and there was no early whale voting (nor much early voting at all) on his first post.
Except that's not accurate. There was early voting from silver and silversteem after only five minutes. After another 30 minutes or so, another three whale votes added to it. Again, this was his very first post and his subsequent posts garnered the same attention, only faster. Here's the link for his first post:
https://steemd.com/travel/@mrron/why-should-you-visit-pakistan
So, we have @mrron and @msgivings - two accounts that received early whale votes and received relatively large payouts over all of their posts. When they were challenged on their credibility, they just cashed out and left. They haven't been heard from since. It may be nothing - or it may be a serious abuse of the system that needs to be explored further. Either way, it's worth finding out for the credibility of the platform, isn't it?
As to the rest of your comment - it doesn't deserve a response. Coming from someone with your influence on this site, it's just disappointing and shameful.
It absolutely is accurate and I'm mildly flagging your post because you are lying and engaging in a continued witch hunt.
The claim that was made to me was "within seconds". I looked yesterday and I saw what you saw. The first major vote within 5 minutes, then nothing (major) for 30 minutes and then most other large votes hours later.
There is absolutely nothing whatsoever about this record indicating any form of abuse and you are misrepresenting it and are making false accusations based on it. Five minutes for the first major vote is hardly right away. This is exactly the sort of timeline that is consistent what I've done nearly every day for the past five months in curation. I look at New, see posts that are quite new, say 0-5 minutes, sometimes voting them up after giving them a look. I look in Hot, and see posts that are a bit older (say 30 minutes), but have been gaining votes (this gives them a high ranking in Hot), and finally I look in Trending and see posts that have gotten a lot of votes (say in the past few hours) but I still consider worth additional votes.
Yes most likely because you and people like you engaged in a witch hunt based on no real evidence, and they either quit or signed up under new accounts to escape the harassment (and I wouldn't blame them for doing either).
I'm sorry, but you are not adding value to the platform with this kind of abusive and hostile behavior toward new users, nor by constantly making false and misleading claims about some alleged abuse. It is more than anything a version of trolling and it has to stop.
@smooth
OK. How am I supposed to know what the claim to you was? I was responding to you when you said:
There was in fact "early" whale voting. I'm not aware of every discussion you have on this platform, so sure - go ahead and flag my comment for that.
Well, no, I'm actually not. It really isn't a "witch hunt" if it was demonstrated that there were in fact problems with those accounts. And, by the way, I didn't engage in anything of the sort while it was happening. I was aware of it, certainly, but it was not my doing.
Well, I'll just go ahead and let all of the other evidence do the talking once it's presented.
I'm sorry that you see it this way. There are a lot of others who do not, including some very big whales. You'd be surprised by the support and what has already been turned up. It's undeniable at this point, and I really don't know why you wouldn't want to know about these things. But it's fine. I'll be sure not to engage with you any longer. You seem to be far more "abusive" and "hostile" than I've ever been - especially to you.
Good day.
@ats-david
I do not consider 5 minutes, 30 minutes, and hours later to constitue "early voting" in any meaningful way. That is entirely typical voting for an active curator who closely follows New (which is hardly unusual) or for a voter who has delegated his voting to someone else (who follows New) and is mirroring their vote (common, but I didn't see obvious evidence of that here).
You are taking perfectly normal, common behavior, and spinning it into abuse, which it is not, selling it on the basis of jealousy and harassment of whales, and trying to impose your ideas of how others should vote. That is absolutely the definition of witch hunting.
That would be a good idea, but then why are these accusations being made and why has this harassment occurred and continues to occur place before, as you acknowledge, the evidence is presented?
When and if you do present this evidence, it better be more solid than someone voting after five minutes.