He was clearly voting in retaliation and the reasons he gave were clearly bogus. It was not to reduce the rewards - if it were he would have flagged the posts above it with less interaction and views.

How do you know what his motivations were?

Smooth can flag for whatever reasons he likes.

Unless that reason isn't good enough for you or happens to a post/user that you support?

I don't think stake weighted votes are "unfair".

Your arguments over the past month tell a different story. Most of the complaints are about whales being too destructive or "harmful" to the platform because they vote how they want with their stake. If flags/downvotes aren't to be taken personally, then why do you care so much about how those flags/downvotes are being used and how is this not a complaint about "unfairness?"

You flag whatever you want for whatever reason you conjure up and that's perfectly acceptable. A whale does it, and you complain incessantly about how they should be more responsible. This is an argument built on an inherent perception of unfairness.

Then again, you don't even complain about whales in general flagging content. You only complain about specific whales flagging content that you support. If you were defending @ozchartart or @masteryoda, I must have missed that.

So, what exactly is your argument? Because it seems to me that you're not the least bit consistent.