You say "Hive witnesses" but cite only one witness. There are over a hundred witnesses. Do you have an idea of how many of those witnesses suggested attacking the chain would be a good idea? Even in the screen cap from Aggy, he says it was a vote to slow the attack and seemed like a good, temporary compromise. He doesn't exactly say "please vote for the attacker" as you seemed to take it

It's a hard situation to imagine - the chain is attacked and witnesses have the choice of having the chain destroyed immediately or having some time to act. Seems like you expected a show of gratitude for not voting soley for the attacker? Of course the real witnesses would prefer to not have the attack be immediately successful, but that doesn't mean they'd be happy about you attacking the chain

As much as I'd like to see people get stake on Hive, I don't think it's realistic. I've supported proposals for people that understand they attacked the chain and know to not do so in the future. My stake isn't enough to grant the proposal; they probably won't make it through the animosity. Claiming that attacking the chain is ok because some said they'd prefer it makes it seem like you still don't understand that you attacked the steem blockchain

Two main points seem to be driving you in that direction

1. You see Justin Sun as one faction and steemians as another faction. Justin Sun was actively attacking the steem blockchain. It'd be a bit like an intruder breaking into your neighbor's house and you join in with the intruder because there's only one intruder, but 3 people live in the house. Voting for multiple copies of a single actor is the very definition of an attack on a DPoS chain. I know people recently are trying to add all sorts of things that count as an "attack", but these are mostly new theories. The 51% attack to elect sock puppet witnesses has been described since before DPoS was even implemented. The solution given for this issue... repeatedly.... over the past seven years: remove the attacking stake

2. Defending the attack because someone said it would be ok. That's just not how it works. You can't steal your neighbor's TV and expect the cops to ignore it because someone walking by said stealing is ok

I'd say you have a better chance at getting stake in Hive if you understood these things, but we both know that'd be a lie. There is too much emotional insanity going on. At the most basic level: attacking stake was removed

It is a bummer you guys wound up in this position, but it isn't a punishment. If the attacking stake isn't removed, then the attack would still be live on the fork.... defeats the whole purpose. There is no KYC to determine people and accounts. Only that the attack occurred and we can see what stake engaged in the attack

For what it's worth, I also disagreed with the freezing of Steemit's stake. Witnesses need to be ready to fork out attacking stake, yes.... but that comes with the... ya know... attack. I don't believe in "preemptive strikes" or "hitting them first cuz you think they'll hit you" or whatever theory they used to justify freezing that stake. If I hadn't spent years in DPoS-land playing "what if?" games to find weaknesses and propose corrections, I may have wound up in the same boat you did