Obvious post is obvious

My plan was, do nothing until the scheduled posts get published.

This plan was affected by @9玥、 causing her video counts to drop. It became, "don't check her account until all scheduled posts get published". This was supposed to be sending a different signal than if I just checked her account every day like she had done nothing.

Typical ways that people judge whether other people are worth listening to:
1) Are other people listening to that person?
2) Is that person rich or successful in something they've tried to do?

But everyone starts at zero. The point is, it would be surprising if anything happened.

I say that people should share this idea. What I cannot do is offer evidence that someone else other than me thinks that people should share this idea.

What can a bunny do? Say that, "It is not acceptable for someone not to share this idea." If someone said this, I would side with that person. Suppose that Person X knows of this idea and is also interested in me. Someone with no influence can still say, "Person X should share this idea." If it's just me being harmed, I will probably forgive Person X no matter what she does.

I could also say, "If someone influential does not share this idea publicly within <time limit>, I am not interested in anyone who has had contact with a government conspiracy."

The post titled Time limit suggested a scenario where 100% of people had to do a 'good' action for it to succeed, similar to the apples game in the Liar Game movie. In fact, this scenario is one where 100% of people have to be 'bad'.

Does this post say anything that isn't obvious?