Since I have written the post on providing advice on an approach to hold Hgin accountable I see there is a number of individuals who have classed it as "threatening". Well, I agree it could be seen as such depending on ones position. Many have taken my statement on not wanting to be responsible for others irrational behavior by being nothing more than honest about what details I have about a user as threatening as well. I agree it could be taken that way. Saying you will inflict transparency on an individual who is behaving criminally is seen as a threat by those who behave as such. My statement in regards to saying I don't want to be responsible for others behaving irrationally and it effect him and where he lives on the other hand is not a threat. It's a statement expressing that others out there have the ability to act irrationally, and I do not want to be responsible for this. Any action no matter what it is, holds the core of its definition in the intent behind it. I see that those I am trying to advocate for by assisting in improving fairness on Steemit are upset from an ideological perspective in regards to my approach. So I'm creating a post to clear this up, though it is not a post which I will debate on. I will simply carry forward afterwards with my original objective.
THE LAW IS THE VIOLENCE OF THE WEAKER MAJORITY IN ANY SOCIETY:
In my approach in using an enforcement arm of a government to hold to account a person who I suspect of breaking the rules it is designed to enforce I have upset some. Steemit is home to a large number of anarcho capitalist with very strong views in regards to seeing government in any form as a manifestation of violence. I agree. It is. Daily we are confronted with a seemingly never ending Orwellian nightmare growing in size and strength. So if I agree, does it not seem hypocritical that I would use a person violating the law as a means of holding him accountable? Well, yes. Yes it does. And I stand open in my hypocrisy unflinching in my exercising of it.
Many could be panicked that my approach at the moment seems to be setting a dangerous precedent on Steemit in regards to settling a dispute. It is important to understand that Steemit itself is a platform designed on an ideology of transparency. This is clearly outlined by 
IDEOLOGY AND STRATEGY NEVER RESULT IN VICTORY WHEN IDEOLOGY DRIVES STRATEGY:
To have a belief and build a structure around it is something that is easily done. Beliefs whether political or religious have been the driving force behind an overwhelming amount of our accomplishments as human beings. When these accomplishments are threatened with violence or suppression it is not the strongest ideology that wins. It is strategy and force that claim victory time and time again. Ideology is what transports us to conflict when an opposing side has a conflicting interest. The side which has used ideology effectively in preparation stands an excellent chance of victory only if beliefs are kept off the table when building an effective strategy.The effective deployment of logic can only occur if belief is removed. We have seen this time and time again throughout history. In involving myself in this problem on Steemit I have employed an approach that most see as unnecessary from an ideological perspective. I have set my own beliefs down in approaching this issue as I refuse to bring ideology to conflict and hope to succeed.
There is a belief that the last thing we need to do is be subservient to government or create more. I agree. I have worked hand in hand with the enforcement arm of government long enough to see it as a manifestation of violence and suppression. Any time an individual or a group of individuals seek to deprive another of their resources or right to freely express themselves then it is an act of violence. A robust response in kind is often required to act as a deterrent. Our entire history is written on this happening consistently. To state this isn't to say that this isn't a problem that requires an evolution in the way we think though. But if you're on Steemit believing it to be a sanctuary of free speech that was created by people with pure intent you are laboring under a mistaken perception.
STEEMIT ISN'T UTOPIA AND WILL REQUIRE WORK TO COME CLOSE:
Steemit and the people who created it are not saints bringing fish and loaves to the suppressed masses. It is a platform built on a block chain that is all about transparency. The engagement with Steemit is made appealing through two tried and tested human behaviors. We have the same ground work which we see on Facebook where people engage and become addicted to the social approval they gain, and the other is the human desire to gain more wealth. If you look at any number of people in the block chain world around this platform you won't find ideological purity either. They can talk about fairness but they still do business with some of the most prolific oligarchs and pedophiles (Brock Pierce) in the world. Some have played direct parts in developing/deploying technologies that have killed thousands. They use whatever finance and support in resources or people they can to build and launch projects to generate wealth. Ideology's can be spoken about or held, but to create things or resolve problems you will find they use whatever tools they have at their disposal. Before we claim that this place has been created from the best motives a hard look at the backgrounds of those who have played a part and are bed fellows of those who made Steemit may be in order. The application itself is on its way to encouraging more transparency as it grows and this will eventually include transparency of wealth on the block chain tied to those who hold it. Sad but true.
This isn't to say Steemit can't be that utopia where free speech and expression reign supreme. But don't look for those two things and an absence of force and a lot of personal responsibility. As wonderful as a truly free social media platform would be it will never happen without force. People will always predate and exploit vulnerabilities of weaker parties if able. The right to defense will need to exist because there will always be attempts at suppression and centralization of power and resources by others. I like many am using what tools I have at my disposal to use two negatives to create a positive effect. I know this doesn't sit well with many. But as I said at the beginning, intent/motive are what deem something criminal or negative. My motive here is to see to the right for weaker users to express themselves as individuals without fear of having their accounts ruined. I do not expect those of you out there to agree with what I do.
In involving myself in this and using the approach I am using it can only be seen as threatening if the opposing side is behaving in an unethical fashion. I do not agree with the fact that the daily up votes generate enough wealth to feed hundreds of people daily and yet only go into one greedy pocket. But this isn't why I am taking the approaches I am taking. I am simply using an institution that is criminal by natural laws (taxation) to cancel out a person who is both criminal by natural laws and the laws of that institution. I have resources many don't have and I'm deploying these in regards to this. I am not out to threaten, I am out to deter. I will do this in a reactionary, legal, and though many will not agree, ethical way. This is why I offer every chance for peace with the cessation of one simple action. I offer choices and react based on what is done. As I progress these approaches will be more detailed, bring about more transparency, and come with a heavy weight of accountability. Some of these tools I will put into the hands of others for them to make use of in countering any attacks on their freedom of expression on Steemit.
I know many will pick this apart and hone in on one sentence or one detail and build a counter. I'm not terribly concerned, I am not out to debate. However, I have heard your feed back, I have taken it on board, I have begun to contemplate ways you can voice your objections to Hgin, have a way to fight back, and it not conflict with your beliefs, and it have an effect. As with all things I am doing in regards to this I will react first and tell you how to do it after. Between each reaction I will leave long periods to see if the cessation of attacking minnows has stopped. Basically I will be giving peace a chance.
In this post I have set out to state my intent and that is what I have done. I feel an understanding of intent is important to offer to those you advocate for, but whether that offered understanding is taken is entirely up to them. Steemit is a social experiment of sorts that is in it's early days and what it will be later will be determined in part by the outcome of conflicts like the one currently underway. There will undoubtedly be more in the future though I hope this is not the case. I hope Steemit members follow the examples of users like 
