I've made at least one retarded post on here that was immediately swarmed with negative ratings and replies from my haters and losers accusing me (baselessly, of course) of being a retard. This experience seriously made me re-evaluate my position and taught me to be a little more critical in how I word and structure my posts so I'm not making a fool of myself. It was also a good lesson in not presenting an idea to the world without something to back it up. And you're absolutely right about needing be able to discern what criticism to accept and what criticism to ignore.
You (&
@Nick Gars, it seems ) are real ones, then. You have a reasonable, rational view of forums and maybe life/critique in general.
The actual issue is that the sector of commenters/ personas that are not "real," either in the sense of being/acting as actual people, and in the sense of being at least occasionally earnest, shitposting aside, disproportionately impacts, directly or indirectly, the site. It gets built/changed for the lowest common denominator bc whereas in most places the lowest quality can be dealt with through specific rules/treatment, there are enough of the lcd here to make an admin feel like that's the norm or can't be managed any way but severely (esp when the admin's own preferences happen to align to at least one way to crunch down on the assholes and the snowflakes).
...just an observation. The (sub-psycho) demented and the (sub-psycho) ruthless give a lot of character to the place, but the headgear-wearing mouth-breather types high-fiving over stupid shit (or actual reckless and harmful shit) and/or can't take a fucking joke and who function on only two speeds are apparently loud, invested, and incapable of dialing it the fuck back or growing the skin that is supposedly the entrance fee to be here - to the point that only treating the whole class like the speds in the back is the answer.
But overall numbers/"points" should exist, too, not just notifications. First of all, it's not a contest - too many posters for that. But it is a shorthand, if imprecise, way to assess if some asshole is just a pure idiot. No one is required to comment, so not doing so at every conceivable opportunity is a way to preserve your count if you're worried about it. And maybe if there are flaws in the points assigned those could be revised (e.g., Null mentioned how lunacy is a neg 1 but it gets used differently; it could be changed to neutral; similarly, maybe a tophat isn't worse than a trashcan...it's not life or death, but you could just have -1, 0, 1, 2 values assigned to ratings, so there's some sense of qualitative critique/approval without the hyper-engineering).