Makes no sense to me.
It has been explained to you, more than once, how the function you are complaining about doesn't even have to influence the way you're using the site. You have complained, in the past, that some people would simply be excluded from the conversation, collectively ignored by the community.
And yet people are talking to you, even explaining ways to use the settings and functions on the site, or discussing your complaints about how free speech is being curtailed by the new functions. That seems to refute those claims on the face of it.
Regarding OB - if you don't care about him, why complain about the fact that his post (which wasn't even about you) has not been collectively voted down? If he has "consistently been a assh+le" towards you - why not simply set him on ignore
? Because by taking away his ability to get on your nerves, you would validate other users' decision to put you on ignore
when you're getting on their nerves?
So far, I don't see how you've made a compelling argument for why intellectual discourse is no longer possible on A2K. It's no secret that some of your ideas are, possibly, not very popular amongst the general membership.
In the last incarnation of A2K, that was made clear by the fact that OB, for example, referred to you in quite unflattering terms across the board. In this incarnation, it may become obvious in the fact the little number on a thread you start changes. Both are expressions of a "popularity contest", if that's the way you want to see it. Neither of them affect your ability to freely voice your opinions, or to have a discussion with members who wish to talk about the stuff you're interested in.
The difference really is that, if OB offends you, you can stop him from ruining your discussions. And if your topics or posts offend other members, they can stop that on their end.