First, the SERIOUS thing is that a person is agreeing with someone who PRESUMES: this is always wrong because it means that the accuser is doing it without knowing anything about what is happening, but only based on their own interpretation.

The second point: it isn't important whether you or I use a translator or not, but it's important if we write information that we manage to send in an approximately correct way.

Third point: I follow all the terms and conditions that the interfaces for Hive and the general Hive ecosystem have released, and - in my case - I have instead met users who have taken the right of being in the position to force others to a policy that they think is the right one, users - it seems - as Hivewatchers.

Fourth point: you are generalizing the situation. Mine is a specific case, not a *"Think if everyone does..."* one.

Fifth point: I explained in the Hivewatchers server why two identical posts might not be pool abuse because pool abuse is when you obtain *a double relevant reward for an identical post*, ***not*** when you publish two identical posts. For example, you publish a post in a community, and then an identical one in another community, and then I vote for each of the two posts: I am creating (i.e. the voting user) the situation of pool abuse. But, moreover, it wouldn't be the author the abusing user, it would be the voting user. Like it is doing, Hivewatchers acts against an author due to a personal state of inability to deal with a problem, because it doesn't have the ability to act against the cause of the problem. (But I repeat that it isn't my case, because I am publishing two different contents, not the same one).