Out of curiosity, why would Suesa's post be exempt?
Regardless of context, people can decide for themselves whether the content of the post itself is worth the value it is drawing from the pool. The post must be compared to its total draw on the pool on personal judgements of value, not context.
Granted, @heimindanger should add a link to the posts in question so people can more easily read and judge for themselves but there is no way in my thinking that a shitpost should have over 1000 dollars on it.
I can't tell who is talking to whom on this post anymore, but since I know you I'll reply to you. Simply, I didn't state suesa's post should be exempt. I just pointed out that the assumption that she did it for money was incorrect. But yes the only qualm I had was that it was described as an artbitrary flagging, which is risky and controversial
They highlighted the problem didn't they? Even the large, heavily rewarded, many eyes already on accounts will use bidbots just 'for a laugh'. Nice role modelling.
For 'disagreement of reward' the content has to be judged on what it takes from the pool, paid or not. That content may not have been worth the value it would have made organically but went over 1000 even after flags. Error in judgement by reggae but saying that it wasn't her that ordered it rubs salt into the wound considering the circumstances and the one minute lockout voting which stops all minnows who support her from getting curation returns.
I agree that context might be important at times but a lot of the context in that argument was being left out of the conversation.
and yeah, the UI for long chains sucks ass.