That was my post:

 

Period from 2020-07-28 to 2022-06-16
7158 Votes on 925 different authors, account has 7158 votes in total.
 
To explain to the community:

@blurtmob had a delegation from the Blurt community account @socialgraph of over 10 million BP.

@rycharde voted with the @blurtmob account.

As you can see in the image, @rycharde self-pvoted his two accounts @rycharde and @blurtyield extremely often.

Yes, @blurtyield is also an account of @rycharde.

Corrupt shit!

Who manages @bitsports?

Also @rycharde?

By the way, @rycharde's witness is called @busbecq.
In case you want to deprive him of the witness vote.
 

This is the reply comment from @rycharde:

 
"I need to explain to your fanbase, and other users, that you have a pain.
It is a pain wholly self-inflicted, but one you seem unable to shake off. Instead of resolving your pain, you prefer to distribute it to others.
That pain of rejection feeds your disturbed mind.
Your pain is that you were so very close to being asked to join the foundation - but then you weren't.
So you sought revenge.

I suspect users are either unaware of this, or have conveniently forgotten. You were asked to join a small group of the then foundation members. That was a kind of probationary period, to see how we would all work together.
But up close, we could see that you had very little to offer; indeed, you seem to think that we were there to help you in private matters, you asked us to support your arguments with other users.
Such public arguments were very similar to now - just a different target.
Your attempts at being helpful were always self-serving, always with you at the centre. Everything you suggested was designed to accumulate your own power.

This seemed rather odd behaviour - instead of helping Blurt to grow and add features, you tried to drag us into taking your side in personal matters, be they arguments or favours.
Up close, you revealed yourself as the passive-aggressive narcissist we see today. You would say different things to different people just to gain their favour; you would say different things in private and in public.
Is this really the kind of person you would want to help guide your own new project?

In the end, you were not asked to join the foundation team. I am not privy to any private chats you may have had with the two founders, just the ones in the group and with myself.
Now, you may go ahead and deny all of this, but I kept the logs. I have no intention of breaking confidentiality, but just to help jog your memory.
It became apparent, up close, that your primary purpose was in self-promotion, and not the overall well-being of the chain.

Your admitted lack of knowledge of how a blockchain works, even at the most basic level of logic and mathematics, means you are able to fabricate huge delusions that lack any evidence, and lack any rationality, or even some loose connection with reality. Instead, you rely on the ignorance of others, and the weakness of some, to help propagate your propaganda.

The passive-aggressive narcissism that you visibly demonstrated is now powered by your pain of failure.
Try therapy, or medication.
You see, you could so easily have just carried on as you were. You had your own self-voting-ring and plenty of voting power.
Instead, you would insist on spreading your pain to others.
You chose to take a stand on an issue that was never going to be put into action. Your crusade against voting services is very similar to your current crusade.
You want to be the policeman of a decentralised chain - laughable, right! No deep thinking about general rules that affect all users, just pick and blame whatever you don't like.
You were found out!

This is your standard manipulation technique: point the finger of blame at others, shout loudly, sound convinced, and few will bother to check that you yourself are guilty of the same accusations. In this case, you yourself had a voting service ring. You couldn't see how funny the hypocrisy was.
YOU broke up your own small community. Nobody forced you to leave. And you didn't actually leave - was all a big theatre of lies.

As we are on the subject of communities, you need to get it into your thick skull, and those of your minions that THERE ARE NO COMMUNITY FUNDS.
Try saying it aloud. Maybe chant it like a mantra with your friends.
NO COMMUNITY FUNDS.
Every so-called "community curation" account was funded by delegations from the founders - including an account for you and your friends. Did you forget that bit? Maybe you should all give back every vote cast from the founders' delegations.
Also note that "the community" includes everybody - it is just a convenient term for the whole userbase - and that includes founders, devs, team members, plus all the other targets for your pain.

Accounts that seem to be called "community accounts" are for the benefit of Blurt users - the "community" - they do not belong to a fiction called "the community".
All the "community accounts" were funded by delegations that ultimately came from the founders.
So what gives you the right to attempt to take away their own stakes and earnings?
I'm sure you would be happy if the situation was reversed, because you're such a communitarian.
Do you really think the founders of a project should give themselves nothing?
Is that what YOU would do? I think not.

Try to remember how everybody got FREE BLURT in the genesis airdrop, including you and your friends. Would you like to give back "to the community" every FREE BLURT you got? Return every FREE printed BLURT.
Better still, everybody should give back all their FREE airdropped tokens - plus everything they have earnt from those tokens. Is that what you would like?
And then, all those FREE BLURT would be handed over to... to whom? To you, your friends, the "community"?

Oh yeah, as I'm here, do show all your fans your alleged 20 "regent accounts". Go on, try! Try to prove your propaganda. For without proof, they are mere lies.

“Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.” (Matthew 7:5)
 

And this is my rejoinder:

 
Actually, I wouldn't answer such a rapacious loudmouth like you at all. But because it concerns the community, if you enrich yourself with the reward pool behind the scenes by exploiting your position, I now make a post out of it.

OMG, the psychopath again, projecting his own shitty thoughts onto his opponent.

The pain in your brain must be infinite!

And immediately you start lying again.

Your pain is that you were so very close to being asked to join the foundation - but then you weren't.

I never wanted to become a member of the Foundation (which is not one). I never asked for it.

Jacob had invited me to become a member of the Foundation.

Unlike me, of course, you were very eager to become a member of the Foundation because you wanted to fill your pockets with money.

Everything you suggested was designed to accumulate your own power.

You are a wretched liar.

I had to fight with you to change the reward curve so that small accounts are no longer penalized. You wanted to keep the shit curve because then you would have earned more.

Here is my post from that time with my wishes.

https://blurt.blog/blurt/@double-u/wishes-for-blurt-thoughts-suggestions-and-ideas-en-de

"2) Linear Reward Curve

We should have the linear reward curve again. The nonlinear curve disadvantages small accounts. The emotional aspect is also very important here. If a small account finds out after a certain time that it often receives 50% less rewards from its votes than large accounts, it feels unfairly treated. This makes it very difficult to identify with the platform and to have any motivation."

"6) Votes for witnesses and proposals

At the moment, only the height of the voter's stake is important. I think that is not very democratic.

There is an alternative demand, which is often heard: 1 account -> 1 vote
However, I also find this variant completely unsuitable, since accounts that are not involved at all and possibly only have 15 BLURT can determine the policy.

I think a compromise of both is suitable.

My idea is: It is the strength of the voting account that counts. But only in the window of for example 10,000 to 500,000 BP. That means:

The vote of an account with 7,000 BP does not count at all.
The vote of an account with 300,000 BP counts as 300,000 BP.
The vote of an account with 1,200,000 BP counts as 500,000 BP."

From it you can clearly see that I wanted to limit the power of large accounts. And I had the strongest account at that time.

Several well-known users here have already said to me, "@double-u, you're the first whale who wants to limit his own power."

you seem to think that we were there to help you in private matters, you asked us to support your arguments with other users.

If I ask in the Foundation group to give the Foundation votes to the witness of @dotwin1981 and prefer to remove them from a person who only harmed Blurt at the time, then that is private matters ... You're crazy!

In the end, you were not asked to join the foundation team.

Sure, Jacob had invited me.

I quickly noticed in the group that you are an extremely arrogant person. Moreover, you misunderstand almost everything, or want to misunderstand everything.

What I think of megadrive is well known.

And so I have not made any more effort in this group. I left it sleeping.

Today I am very glad that I officially never became a member of the Foundation group.

How wrong your thought is that this would hurt me shows that I haven't thought about it for many months. On the contrary. I am happy that I do not have to communicate with you in this group!

Now here comes a lot of bullshit text from you without any evidence. I'm not even going to go into it. Just one thing I will say about that.

If a Blurt user doesn't know a mathematical formula, he is not stupid, as you have arrogantly claimed over and over again. He certainly has other skills that probably surpass yours. The really stupid one is the one who cannot explain the formula to the user. This is called lack of emotional intelligence or lack of empathy. And you are such a stupid cripple.

In this case, you yourself had a voting service ring.

To call my pub that is a testament to the fact that you never understood it.

All users from all countries could win 9 strong 100% votes in the quiz there in the evening. Apparently you were too stupid for the questions. Otherwise you could have won too.

Every so-called "community curation" account was funded by delegations from the founders - including an account for you and your friends.

You wretched liar!

I have never received a delegation from Community Blurt. I never asked for it either.

I have never received a cent or a blurt from community blurt accounts. I had never asked for it either.

Unlike you, I have $50,000 invested in Blurt.
You just cashed in. Every month 200,000 BLURT from community blurt. Once you changed a formula. Other than that, you just had a big mouth, but didn't create anything.

And then, all those FREE BLURT would be handed over to... to whom? To you, your friends, the "community"?

You are crazy and not to be taken seriously!

Oh yeah, as I'm here, do show all your fans your alleged 20 "regent accounts". Go on, try! Try to prove your propaganda. For without proof, they are mere lies.

You sick idiot! This statement with these 20 accounts is not from me. Go search, you idiot. This was written by someone who is traveling.