I believe he is talking about someone who actually made the argument that he is arguing against.

Can you find the instance of it? Given his argument style, short of contrary evidence, my best guess is still that it was indeed a strawman argument. It's a very popular tactic used by people who prefer to manipulate rather than rationally debate an issue: they like to mix up a lot of nonsense with some obvious truths to confuse the easily swayed. I think the method was ultimately turned into a science by cold callers who start with obvious questions that get you saying "yes" to, in order to create a trend of agreement.

I'm also curious to know if you are aware that he has been the target of a downvote campaign by @azircon. That could explain (not justify) him being hyperbolic.

I wasn't aware of it, because I'm much more involved on the technical side of Hive than the social side. But I agree it doesn't justify lucylin's response. And that's what I'm voting on.

The downvote system on Hive is deeply flawed, IMO. I even argued against it in one of my early posts on the subject, because it does have negative effects. But I think it also has some positive effects, despite it being a weak system.

I absolutely do believe we need a signaling system for calling out bad behavior, rating bad information, etc. But a downvote on Hive doesn't do this nearly well enough, because it's too one dimensional, and it assumes that the reaching of one consensus is the optimal state. We need something much more nuanced, and that's what I'm planning to create eventually.