In contrast to a traditional Q/A or forum-style format, Stack Exchange aims to first create a library of high-quality questions and answers with as little noise, discussion, or pleasantries obfuscating them. This has worked well over the years, but it also means that the feeling, experience and, yes, treatment of the asker is secondary to the usefulness of the Q/A to future visitors. This means that Stack Exchange treats every post as standing on its own, ideally without considering the author whatsoever.

In contrast to a traditional Q/A or forum-style format, Stack Exchange aims to first create a library of high-quality questions and answers with as little noise, discussion, or pleasantries as possible obfuscating them. This has worked well over the years, but it also means that the feeling, experience and, yes, treatment of the asker is secondary to the usefulness of the Q/A to future visitors. This means that Stack Exchange treats every post as standing on its own, ideally without considering the author whatsoever.

In contrast to a traditional Q/A or forum-style format, Stack Exchange aims to first create a library of high quality questions and answers with as little noise, discussion or pleasantries obfuscating them. This has worked well over the years, but it also means that the feeling, experience and yes treatment of the asker is secondary to the usefulness of the Q/A to future visitors. This means that Stack Exchange treats every post as standng on its own, ideally without considering the author whatsoever.

All community moderation is geared this way. You don't see context of what a user posted in review, you're not supposed to consider who posted what when voting, downvotes are anonymous and at the discretion of the users casting them, unless (and that's the only unless) you target them at a specific user. Yes, that means that I can go around downvoting everything I see when I have a bad day, but downvoting a specific user's posts in a serial way is a punishable offense.

• Commenting for people to take your condition into consideration is likely to be unfruitful, such comments are frequently removed as no-longer-needed or obsolete. Comments are only supposed to be used for clarification or direct actionable feedback or direct criticism on a post. Even those are regularly deleted after their purpose has been served. In addition to this you are likely to invoke a form of streisand effect (requesting that people do not down or closevote causes people to do it more, in any form).

• Editing such a passage into your post would likely be removed as noise (posts are supposed to contain only material directly related to the question or an answer thereof). It also triggers the same streisand effect.

• As you have noted, stack exchange staff is not really able to assist you when contacted about something like this, as its a function of their Q/A system and changing it to suit these purposes is currently unfeasible and undesired by the community.

• Moderators can not do anything beyond deleting actual rudeness, for which there are dedicated flag types.

Actual unfrienliness and unkindness or verbal abuse is against the Code of Conduct. This means that it is actionable by moderators. You can flag comments containing such as unkind or abusive, and if they are found to be by moderators, the comments will be deleted and if the user has a history of doing something like this, they'll be sanctioned.

In contrast to a traditional Q/A or forum-style format, Stack Exchange aims to first create a library of high-quality questions and answers with as little noise, discussion, or pleasantries obfuscating them. This has worked well over the years, but it also means that the feeling, experience and, yes, treatment of the asker is secondary to the usefulness of the Q/A to future visitors. This means that Stack Exchange treats every post as standing on its own, ideally without considering the author whatsoever.

All community moderation is geared this way. You don't see context of what a user posted in review, you're not supposed to consider who posted what when voting, downvotes are anonymous and at the discretion of the users casting them, unless (and that's the only unless) you target them at a specific user. Yes, that means that I can go around downvoting everything I see when I have a bad day, but going through and downvoting a specific user's posts in a serial way is a punishable offense.

• Commenting for people to take your condition into consideration is likely to be unfruitful, such comments are frequently removed as no longer needed or obsolete. Comments are only supposed to be used for clarification or direct actionable feedback or direct criticism on a post. Even those are regularly deleted after their purpose has been served. In addition to this you are likely to invoke a form of Streisand effect (requesting that people do not downvote or close vote causes people to do it more, in any form).

• Editing such a passage into your post would likely be removed as noise (posts are supposed to contain only material directly related to the question or an answer thereof). It also triggers the same Streisand effect.

• As you have noted, Stack Exchange staff is not really able to assist you when contacted about something like this, as its a function of their Q/A system and changing it to suit these purposes is currently unfeasible and undesired by the community.

• Moderators can not do anything beyond deleting actual rudeness, for which there are dedicated flag types.

Actual unfriendliness and unkindness or verbal abuse is against the Code of Conduct. This means that it is actionable by moderators. You can flag comments containing such as unkind or abusive, and if they are found to be by moderators, the comments will be deleted and if the user has a history of doing something like this, they'll be sanctioned.