another way to approach is to start with a basic formula: h ≥ g = a + b + c - (d + e + f)

h = visibility
g = positive influence/presence
a = topical, interesting posts
b = topical, interesting replies
c = ignoring/shunning offensive posts/personalities
d = direct personal attacks
e = indirect personal attacks
f = oblique/sidelong references/commentary about other personalities

net positive = beneficial influence
net negative = malignant influence
higher g-value = better/less bad
lower g-value = worse/more bad
total impact is capped by h (i.e., if no one notices you or what you say...)

if a-f are mere post counts, then each of the factors a-f should be weighted.

assuming every topcial interesting reply is equally topical and interesting (etc.), i'm tempted to say that "abc" posts are worth less than "def" posts, because bad behavior carries greater impact (let's say 25 times more provocative).

within these abc v. def brackets, behaviors can also be weighted. if a rates 1.0, then i'd say b rates 1.5 (since good replies are the lifeblood of conversation). c rates .25 at most (since it's effect is unseen). i'd say def posts are actually equally deleterious within the category.

so my final formula is: h ≥ g = a + 1.5b + .25c - 25(d + e + f)

rating myself approximately: a = 0, b = .1, c = 15, d = 0, e = 0, f = 2 for a total of -46.1.

however, i consider my visibility (judged by who references my name) to be minimal, so, although my participation is overwhelmingly negative, my net contribution to the problem is capped at a very low figure.