Note that we really should have an <ignore> around here. Ah, if only there was an <ignore karma votes> as well! Technology saves the day again!

Killfiles are shit. The incentive structure they create is all screwed up: not only would they contribute to fragmenting the community into little incestuous clumps of people all vigorously pandering to each other (if someone killfiles you, you don't have to worry about their votes), but they raise barriers to entry (by making it necessary for new users to killfile every troll and douchebag in the community) and don't materially discourage trolling (because people need to read your stuff to killfile you, and because hundreds of clicks are a lot more effort than a few sentences of drivel). At best they can function as a patch over an inadequate moderation policy, which at least I'll confess we've historically had.

"Ignore votes" is actually kind of interesting, but it doesn't solve the problem of people's privs getting affected by mass downvotes, makes voting a lot less anonymous if it's reversible, and still creates somewhat ugly incentives. It should never be harder, as a sum of effort, for a forum to correct for the presence of a problem user than it is for that user to create problems.

You see nothing reasonable about being perturbed if "many" people in your community not only dislike you but make a point of indicating that dislike?

Many people in a community of hundreds or thousands. To the extent that anyone has noticed you, some like you, and some don't. This is a fact you should have been able to infer without seeing any karma votes.

Keep your eye on the ball: I wrote, adding emphasis this time, "not only dislike you but make a point of indicating that dislike". You, for whatever reason, then skipped over that second part and zoomed in on the mundane fact that some people who post here dislike some other people who post here.

Be perturbed if it floats your boat. Nurse and cherish your perturbation. The issue again is failing to do something you want to do because some people have publicly indicated something you should have known in the first place.

Again I find I have to repeat myself with emphasis: "that in itself [i.e. having people publicly display their contempt for you] can change 'something they want to do' to 'something they no longer want to do'."

It sounds like the mental model you have of this kind of situation is missing a dimension. The information transmitted when X pointedly & publicly signals their dislike of Y to Y is not simply, "I dislike you". It's closer to "I dislike you, and I dislike you to such a degree that I'm willing to express that fact in spite of whatever social friction it causes between me and everyone else, and in spite of whatever time & effort it costs me, because I think it's totes worth making my dislike of you cognitively salient to you." It can also be a show of social power.

It actually is, given that that bozo is themselves part of the community.

See phrase "rest of the community", and context clearly distinguishing them as distinct from "one bozo".

The context, as I saw it, was that I'd already used the phrase "rest of the community" to refer to everyone on LW apart from Ander, including Eugine_Nier. You used the same phrase when responding to me on that point, so I presumed you were following my usage, and simply indicating a subset of the "rest of the community" with "one bozo". Evidently I was mistaken on that point; perhaps you weren't distinguishing the phrases as clearly as you thought?

And what statements specifically are you calling an "insult"?

1. "It's simply dysfunctional to let yourself be controlled by the opinions of others, particularly when it's one random internet bozo who whacks your karma."

2. "Everyone who thinks it's perfectly functional to let yourself be driven off of participating in an internet community because some random bozo gives you a karma bombing is dysfunctional too."

I expect you'll argue that (1) isn't actually an insult since it's denigrating a behaviour rather than a person, and that (2) wasn't actually directed at me. But a little thought would give the lie to such an argument: (2) doesn't make much sense as a germane reply to me unless it's a dig at me for being "dysfunctional", and the "too" at the end of (2) shows your hand by implying that (1) was actually denigrating a person, not just a behaviour.

How many hundreds or thousands of people are on this list? If they're going to stop wanting to talk to all of them because one other guy is an asshole, they are dysfunctional.

And with that, the conversation is back where it started. I don't see the point in completing another circuit, given your sneery hyperbole and such; unless you can pull the quality of your argumentation out of its current nosedive, don't expect another reply.