Lucylin cultivates a disreputable manner, but he does not scam, spam, nor plagiarize. It is precisely because you don't like his content that it best represents your commitment to free speech. Supporting only speech you like isn't supporting free speech at all. That's exactly the position the censors like Goolag, Twatter, and Metard take.

"Such as?"

It has been a very long time, and I do not recall other details of the conversation which may have entailed expectatio of my discretion. I am not going to name them unless they themselves tell me it's ok.

"No, it is not."

Yes, it is. It serves no other purpose than to strip the upvotes of the community of their financial value, which is returned to the pool for the benefit of whales that consistently extract more than 90% of that value themselves. I confess after the Haejin/Bernie fiasco I quit paying much attention to that metric, so maybe that has changed a little, but I doubt it has changed much since then.

It serves no curative purpose.

Also, you sorta sidestepped my observation that if you were being flagged such that you still received no financial reward at all for it you would not be posting. We have both kept posting when flagged, but we have not been flagged for months on end, our reputations sent negative. I have watched as users here have stuck to their guns when flagged deeply into negative rep, been upvoted back, and flagged and upvoted back again. @skeptic was determined not to be silenced, and remains someone I miss for that example of indomitable will. Sadly, it seems not to have been enough to bring him back after his move.

That kind of flagging can be done, it has been done, it's being done, and it should not be done. It's contrary to the purpose of a platform dedicated to free speech and makes Hive no different than Twatter, Goolag, or Metard.

@edicted long ago published a detailed savings plan nominal to avail whales of substantial ROI without deranging curation, and I still recommend that mechanism as far superior to the current curation rewards scheme, which I still maintain should be abolished.

I am not seeing anything that changes my positions, and do not think I am giving you any new information that changes yours. I recall being shut down by a top 20 witness without substantive argument and no more reply than 'We disagree.' That isn't an example of reason and discussion leading to improvement in policy, but of money preventing it.

That's exactly the problem at issue.