If they were all commented you'd be right on the mark. It wouldn't make it "ok", but it would help smooth things over. However even this post just got flagged by @smooth with no explanation given despite no whale votes and only being worth about $20.00 something dollars.
I think in that case it's not really so much abstaining from voting, as lashing out. I could be wrong, but without an explanation I'm left with the unenviable position of trying to imagine why someone I consider a friend and regular supporter, is suddenly flagging me. And that's sort of my point. This hurts, emotionally it makes anyone on the receiving end feel slighted.
he mentioned he didn't want to take part in the experiment anymore . We're mixing personal opinion up with fair distribution of rewards.There are no whale bots that ever upvote me, same with several others and I think this is what @berniesanders was getting at when
Is a post telling people that we're nearly past the worst of it, and now is a great time to buy, really worth $20 something when the rewards pool is so low?
I think only the community at large has the right to determine that. But downvoting when there are no whale votes present just because you disagree with someone, while claiming to be part of an experiment to see what happens when whales "don't vote". Makes the result invalid.
I still don't know why @smooth downvoted this post and coming from a person I admire and respect so much, I'm just baffled.
Hmmm, now that you mention it I'm a bit curious too. $20 doesn't seem like that much, makes me wonder what the threshold is for triggering a downvote. And I thought it was only to counter votes from other whales that don't want to play along. Seems there is some lack of consistency here... would be nice to know the exact criteria being applied. Also I wonder if it's being done manually? To ensure the experiment is fair, running a bot to apply the criteria equally across all posts and ensure comments get left would be best.
A downvote is still a vote. That's my point. Whatever the reason, you can't say you're seeing what happens when whales don't vote and then suddenly start voting, regardless of if that vote is positive or negative.
You're just being intellectually dishonest when you do.
Even more so when you flag content that doesn't have the requisite criteria of having any whale votes at all in the first place.
I'm just curious because I've never seen @smooth act this way. I expected better and it makes me disappointed. He's usually my biggest supporter.