That's why the community can vote on airdropping those people after all.
From a technical point of view it is the right thing to do. PoS needs accountability

The damage is already done, voting them back would not help. It is submissive to make the appeals.

Yes, the damage is done.. by the actions the accounts made to support the centralization of the Steem chain.

As the post said, they are still free to take part.. but based on a specific criteria that went against decentralization, they didn’t get given a new asset - HIVE.

The decentralized Hive community now has the option to still allocate that new asset or not.

The action is a Boolean. Vote can’t capture context. It isn’t entirely conclusive to ascertain intention etc based on static vote. The proof of brain vote has more dynamics. People voting on witness may not mean they support ideals. I vote too and in many cases, not with the intention of playing a role in governance. On blockchain even moreso is it possible that people can have a variety of actions, even unconventional. Though it is a public ledger it does have an anonymity paradigm as well. People don’t necessarily need to explain actions or even participate in governance. I may want to say that a person voted on witness to support a certain ideal etc but can I be conclusive to where I use this as basis for a governance decision. In my case no. Truth people don’t have to explain why they vote, except voluntarily cos again there is an anonymity paradigm. There are accounts that come here never to say a word and on blockchain, well they are allowed. Perhaps the governance layer can learn from the proof of brain layer, where vote is more dynamic and may form a better basis for governance, than the witness vote which is mostly static and entirely stake-based. There is a lot for learn from this and perhaps aspects to improve

Those will be group appeals. Those are made by the community and then approved by the community. It's not submissive at all.

Why was it a mistake? Do you want people to get free tokens on this chain when they have demonstrated that they are willing to support a centralized entity that will lock up user accounts and hold them for ransom? You think people like that are entitled to new tokens on a decentralized platform that wishes to remain decentralized?

Its about being inclusive and be the bigger man. The main issue was the STINC stake with more than 70M and I'm 100% on board with that one. The 1 or 2 or even 3 M more that were excluded just made a lot more divisions and made a small community even smaller, and put some dark stains. If we dont onboard more users, dapps etc the value will go down.

This is my opinion and not everyone should agree with it :)

I already disagreed with this kind of opinion 17 days ago.