How are those things related in your mind?

You're saying people downvote others because they don't post often enough? That heavy users of the website are intrinsically more trustworthy, somehow? You tend to come at things from the simplest angle you think places you in a good light, ignoring whatever other legitimate criticisms of your rapport and behavior are brought up.

And again, if you're trying to say that your opinions become valid simply because of upvotes, then surely you must have some transparent data on where those upvotes come from, right? Would you be willing to share that with us? It's an odd double standard that you legitimize your own posts because of their so-called popularity, but delete comments and band and mute users who post comments that are similarly upvoted but have opinions you disagree with. In the same vein, why be fearful and preemptive of those posts and users instead of just allowing the "vote" system to do its job? Surely if those comments are so inappropriate or out of place they'll just be downvoted out of visibility anyway, right?

If you can categorically profess that every single "young" account that posts in your "domain" is an "alt" or whatever "sock puppet" means without a shred of evidence or accountability, then surely I can imply that you might be manipulating vote counts - which is a direct violation of your own ruleset.

And, in practice, you're creating an environment where "new" users and participants can't surmount the arbitrary and mostly unknown barrier to entry, and the whole place stagnates under a dwindling number of "legacy" and "approved" commentators. You are, without a hint of irony or self-awareness, creating an ideal echo chamber.