> You tried before to censor my content via an ill composed open letter trying to dictate what I can and can't post.

The [letter](https://steemit.com/abuse/@transisto/open-letter-to-ranchorelaxo-and-haejin) wasn't about what you can and can't post it was what I would flag first. 
Communicating with you is not censorship, flagging below zero could be seen as a form of censorship but anyway I'm way past the point of wanting to waste vote power to upvote your overly-flagged (censored) posts. 

> And yet here you are trying again to censor on votes. You're basically threatening me...giving me an ultimatum saying that IF I don't comply to your requirements, YOU will attack. 

There is no ultimatum, it has already started yesterday.

> BTW, I have been up voting others and if you didn’t even bother to check before threatening, it’s your bad error.

You self-voted yourself with 91.5% of your voting power while @rachorelaxo upvoted you with 98.5% of his in the last 14 days.

> Have you considered that such self directed censorship initiatives can cause the exit of one of Steemit’s biggest investor? How exactly does a censorship forced exit of $1.45 Mil help Steemit? Better yet, have you also considered how censorship prevented the potential doubling or triple of the $1.45 Mil investment? Do you even realize that your type of censorship is actually driving away investments?

**One of the reason why Steem is valuable is precisely because there is a built in mechanism that allow people to counter overzealous voting behaviors like your and @Ranchorelaxo's. It require both investment and sacrifice to be able to counter votes and what is being countered of @Rachorelaxo vote is increasing the influence of every other token holders over the reward.**

> Meanwhile, here is just a small sample of your self upvotes of your own comments.

It's not a small sample, you cherry picked only the comments that I self-upvoted out of many more. Worry not, I will not be self-voting more than you do as I just committed to flagging you once a day.
BTW my self-voting rate for the 12 days you're showing is ~9%.

While you're talking about my selfvotes why not have a deeper look at them like [this one](https://steemit.com/steemit/@cryptovestor/critical-analysis-of-steem-and-why-i-m-invested#@transisto/re-cryptovestor-critical-analysis-of-steem-and-why-i-m-invested-20180409t235435618z). I upvoted almost every of Cryptovestor previous video and upvoted this specific one with one full @promobot vote for free. Maybe that's part of the reason why he bothered to make a positive Steem specific video for his 149k real Youtube followers.

> I self upvote as a protective moat against the trolls and haters downvoting. What is your reason?

Your're conveniently twisting the order of events, people flag you because you were self-voting too much for what they think you contribute to Steem.

> If you can compell @done and his posse as well as @fulltimegeek to lay off their downvotes on the day seven posts, I’ll have a greater reason to reduce my protective self upvotes. 

I have no affiliation with @done or @fulltimegeek, but I think it would make sense for them to prioritize flagging post that they can suppress near zero. What they do afterward with the rest of their SP is between you and them.

> The trolls and haters like you force me to carry out the protective upvotes!

Stop with the bullshit!

> ANY post of mine that is made invisble or heavily downvoted will be rightfully reposted! 

You can do whatever you want with your content, our goal in the end is to fully counter a threshold fraction of @ranchorelaxo selfish voting so we will adapt accordingly.

> I will not succumb to Gustapo type of threats or ultimatums!

Are you really comparing non-aggressive activities on an open blockchain with Nazism?