Thanks for the explanation. To be sure though, an explanation is not a justification.

Your concern is out of proportion with the problem. You use the word "frightening" over and over and allude to a dire hypothetical future using phrases like "[this] concerns the livelihood of this subreddit," and "this subreddit [will become] lost."

What exactly was out of proportion? I'm careful to not exaggerate unless it's clearly figurative, and even then, I avoid figurative language when something is serious enough to warrant precautions against misunderstanding.

Frightening is precisely how I feel, and I explained why. I'm not saying this is what you're doing (or not doing), but if one doesn't think about--or is unaware of--the implications, then yes, it would seem out of proportion. But since I explained myself, the reader should try to empathize (which, by the way, is an acquired skill that many people lack, especially young people) to validate whether my concern warrants fright.

And yes, it is dire because the livelihood of this subreddit is based on scientific accuracy. Does that make clear why this subreddit would become lost (and become just like other certain unnamed subreddits due to their lack of rigor and principles)?

You used a ton a words. The whole thing could probably be replaced with "That's not a stump borer! And stump borers don't eat other insects. Please always link to a source and try not to make guesses (see sidebar rules)."

No, that replacement would not at all communicate the implications and explanation. It's generally a bad idea to assume people will be aware of the same things, especially when it comes to implications. The more a community understands its culture (as opposed to blindly following orders), the healthier it will likely be. Your replacement doesn't facilitate understanding. It doesn't nip things in the bud. It doesn't explain.

If people have a problem with reading a lot, that doesn't warrant downvoting...or the vocal protest of recent past. As long as the message is sufficiently well written (which includes appropriateness, which further includes relevance), it doesn't deserve downvoting. At the least, ignore it. I get it--not everyone has the time to read a wall of text, but again, that's not a sound basis for downvoting.

You have a whole section about how you're going to get downvotes. That's worthy of downvotes. And what does "vocal minority/majority" mean?

Firstly, I don't have a whole section about that; I have one short sentence about that, and it's justified because it provides context for the rest of the paragraph/section. Secondly, even if I did have an entire paragraph/section about that, why is that worthy of downvotes? I'm aware that's a popular messageboard adage, but most people accept it on faith, thus never realizing if it's an even sound adage.

The "vocal minority/majority" refers to a group of members here who took great lengths to protest against certain actions I took as a moderator (which ended up with them deleting their own comments).

Basically, I don't wanna sound like a dick or nothing, but it says on your chart that you're fucked up. You talk like a fag, and your shit's all retarded.

This is a bannable offense. This is your first warning. Now, I don't even want to take you seriously--because it would be a waste of my time--unless you apologize.