As I stated on @mynameisbrian's post:

>I honestly don't see the point of this "experiment." We already know how non-whale voting is affected when whales don't vote. We know in theory and in actuality.

>The only purpose that this "experiment" could serve is where the non-whale votes are going. However, given the amount of automation - largely due to past rewards history of users and the build-up of their followings - we have a very good approximation of where the bulk of the votes will go. And unless the "experiment" is run on a test platform that excludes/mitigates such voting, there's no way to accurately gauge active user interests.

>There are several other issues with this "experiment" that will skew any results, including the fact that the "counter" voting is completely arbitrary - regarding both the weight of the votes and the accounts being voted on.

>So, what we're left with is: GIGO.

>The only thing we'll know for sure about this "experiment" is that many users will be upset about the arbitrary flagging. But we already knew about this as well.

If we want a "fairer" distribution of influence/rewards, the first thing that can be done - that actually had widespread support - is to adjust the n^2 rewards curve...which has been excluded in the next hard fork. Instead, the dev team has decided to plow ahead with more contentious changes. This "experiment" really serves no purpose and will only result in more of the same wrong-headed thinking, in my opinion.