The whale behavior on this particular post is very interesting. The three largest non-team VESTers are @berniesanders, @smooth, and I. We would meet the definition of "whales" maybe not so much for the magnitude of our holdings, but merely for our high positions on the rich list.

Based purely on a fairly trivial "pile-on" algorithm, I voted for your post. It was the first vote, as a matter of fact. My vote intends only to maximize my profit, without regard to any other factor. I admit to that fully. My actions are a result of a complete loyalty to the nature of the system, which is one of driving behavior using incentives.

Unlike me, @berniesanders and @smooth downvoted your post. I don't know what their motivations were, but the net effect is that they sacrificed voting power to take some rewards from you.

My question is, if whale behavior can be good or evil (subject to the binary nature of a vote), who is good and who is evil here? Obviously one vote is good and the other is evil. Which is which?

These are rhetorical questions, of course, because no matter how each of us acted, it was undeniably for selfish reasons. Mine is to maximize my rewards (even if it means enriching a greater whale), and the others are likely acting to satisfy some psychological need, such as the need for justice (even if it means reducing benefits of a fellow steemian).