On the 'I don't receive much validation in my life so why shouldn't I just enjoy this validation that I am receiving' point.

I would say: That there are ways to receive validation that don't involve invalidation to others. I'm concerned that while these icons validate some members contributions (by acknowledging some members as a 'supporter' the very same icons are invalidating of other members (by failing to acknowledge other members as a 'supporter').

So... Weighing the validation to some vs the invalidation to others...

Regarding the 'supporting PC vs supporting others' distinction there seems to be two points of dispute.

1) One could dispute whether number of posts / financial support etc is an appropriate measure of how one does or does not support PC.
2) One could dispute whether being acknoweledged as a supporter of PC is a reliable indicator of a poster supporting others.

I"m not at all meaning to say that it is out of the question that people who are acknowledged as supporters of the site are more likely to support others than those who are not acknowledged as supporters of the site. Though one would need to do a study in order to assess the truth of this (empirical) claim). I am questioning whether being acknowledged as a supportive member of this site is likely to be a RELIABLE INDICATOR of whether one is likely to be supportive to others. This seems to be an assumption, and I'm not at all sure that this is something that we should merely assume.

I'm also questioning whether encouraging people to post more (or to donate money) in order to be regarded as a 'supportive' member of the site is really something that is valued. Why do we care about QUANTITY rather than QUALITY of posts?

I guess I'm just wary... Of something that makes it even harder for newbies to feel accepted and supported and valued here...