You would not want to admit that is the case but why else would you cast self upvoting as so vital to the platform and the distribution if that was not implied?

Demonstrating that a person's blind spot towards an aspect of a debate resembles bad behaviour most certainly does not constitute an Ad Hominem fallacy.

I admire your desire to continue trying to find a way through my wall of reasons, don't stop, please. I am not trolling you in this statement, at all, this is why I have not made any such explicit declarations. 

You know, I could be wrong on a very critical point. I don't see it yet, and this is not the first debate I have had about this with people, as you can imagine. I would like you to keep looking as long as you feel dissatisfied with my answers, and probe me as much as you like. Of course if you were to start using Ad Hominems I would simply stop replying.

This is a collaborative process of truth discovery, vitally important to the progress of our species.

![flagrewards.png](https://steemitimages.com/DQmUpo62t2B9eTgwbGLq17svFUWpchCyH8wMRgiUNhogmtG/flagrewards.png)

You are also free to do as you wish with your voting power, and I use it to call people out for being egotistical, control freaks afraid they aren't going to get anyone voting on their content, deciding that the rewards should go to them.

Clearly I am within the rights defined even just on this site as a commonly accepted method of interaction with content that will receive unjust rewards.

Note that you will never see @l0k1 vote for @elfspice, since some also want to whine that stopping self voting on the interface and blockchain does not stop using alt accounts. I am resteeming all my new posts from the @elfspice account, however. Since, after all, it is me, same person, my followers will still want to see them.

I notice @l0k1 has not got to this comment yet - I am in full agreement with you there @lexiconical :)