"Resisted adding votes to comments". Perhaps something less digital would work that is generated by thumbs up or down but only results in a logarithmic indication by way of a single arrow head that is as high as the number of bits used to store the vote count. 16 votes would be a 4 pixel high arrow, 100 votes would raise the arrow height to 7 pixels, each vote makes so little difference that warring would rarely be a problem and the positive or negative value of the comment would become apparent to those that care. If a bunch of people vote a comment down I know I must avoid that pitfall in my experiment or research even though I might have thought the comment suggested a viable avenue to follow.

That's an interesting idea, thanks!

I reply to your comment here to let you know that I would simply have given it an upvote as your comment could have been avoided by the same mechanism to show that you thought it was an interesting idea. The upvote only is like Youtube these days and smacks of censorship (which is why YouTube implemented it, they were getting such floods of down votes on official narrative videos that they had to hide the down votes. LinkedIn does not offer any down votes so we never know if a post or comment is bad or if the algorithms shadow banned it or if the public really does not care, remember the down vote is a better teaching tool than no reaction. Visitors want to have a little bit of power, many times on SE a person with 100 points would vote on a comment or answer and said they joined JUST TO VOTE, no engagement, no buy in. It is not a mistake that all the big boys do so as long as it does not enrage their shareholders. Codidact in theory has none such and can take any criticism, I hope.