I think this hits on an important point. Individualization leads to decentralization -- which gives every user more power to control his/her online experience -- which is good! However, having an aspect of the site that may make users fearful to share ideas, post an article, get into an argument... is something Hubski has always tried to avoid... and I think this is wise as well. Maybe there is a middle ground? Maybe we could have a system where you can (privately) "star" commenters you appreciate. This would sort of mimic the philosophy of the Hubwheel. The Hubwheel is only positive (there is no equivalent to the "downvote"). So maybe we should have the same thing for an individualized commenting system?While I like individualization, I don't like things that are inherently negative.
b_b and I were talking about it, and functionality-wise the most useful signal would actually be to indicate the commenters you definitely didn't appreciate. That is, if I had to pick the people I did appreciate, it could be either a very narrow, or very broad selection, and drawing the line might seem arbitrary. However, it's always pretty clear to me when I don't appreciate a certain commenter. Although I do worry that it could create a negative vibe by having that decision to make.
It's a tough call. I'm not sure if any comment platforms already have individualized comment sections so there may be no template to base this off of. Could you instead just design algorithms that "know" what commenters you frequently "hubwheel" or respond to?