[somenameforme]

I don't understand the desire to argue against this in identity politics terms, which I assume you realize is going to be extremely divisive. There's a far more simple argument that people, independent of ideological framing, would tend to agree upon. And that's what is valuable to one person isn't valuable, to the same degree, to another. For things that are completely illegal, like murder, such a system would be pretty useless because we already have systems in place to punish that sort of behavior and defacto social scoring on it as well.

So this is going to come down to things that aren't usually illegal or 'that illegal', but otherwise affect society. So for instance one group might want to reasonably punish the directors of a company that causes emissions. Another group might want to reasonable reward the directors of a company that creates a large number of desirable jobs. And even in this one example you immediately end up with a weird scenario. Is it okay to pollute as long as you make enough jobs? Who gets to decide that?

There's no need for cartoon villainy for this to be a bad idea. Even completely well intentioned, it just doesn't work out well. And the more diverse a society, the worse it's going to work.

[knollimar]

How do you combat review bombing or someone just being bigoted?

[bell-cot]

The same ways that you have to combat fudged scientific data and didn't-write-it authors and lazy reviewers and hate from people who are in the opposite school on the whole Alzheimer's Amyloid issue and shite-quality citatations and etc. etc. etc.?

Yes, there can be obvious patterns to money/friends/skin color/gender that should be watched out for. But if you're paying much attention to those, then your science will quickly become a mere side gig to your new Cultural Warrior job.