Yes, it's certainly true that some people here are at least open to spelling reform. But there's a few reasons why it may not seem that way in your conversations at the moment:
1. Lots of spelling reforms have been suggested on this board by people who go away again soon after. Spelling reformists online, like auxlangers, tend to be obsessive: they're only interested in one topic, and are only interested in one perspective on their topic. So they find a forum like this, they make a couple of posts about how their reforms will improve literacy or begin a few threads about how their auxiliary languages will remove all ambiguity and restore world piece and equality, they argue furiously when people say things like "we've seen this many times and you haven't considered the problems that arise from this idea", and then they go away again. They say things like "what are your ideas?", but they don't actually engage with any ideas other than their own. They don't comment on other conlangs or conworlds - they often say rather disparaging things about conlanging and conworlding as enterprises - they don't engage in the community threads. They're not here to talk or to discuss, they're here to Spread the Good News, and once they discover that people here are heathens they go away again. So the ratio of long-term members is more skewed against reforms (whether grammatical or only orthographic) than the ratio of posts.
2. Like auxlangers, spelling reformers tend to have their own reforms and not to support the reforms of others.
3. Specifically, your spelling reforms aren't very good, so they're unlikly to get much support. More specifically: people interested in spelling reform tend to fall into two camps: those who want to talk about a total, ground-up reform of spelling from first principles (usually only as a thought experiment), and those who want to talk about low-visibility reforms that try to stay as close to contemporary spelling principles as possible while removing irregularities and a few sources of confusion. Your problem is that you fall between the two camps. Your reforms are much uglier and more dramatic and counterintuitive than are actually required to remove ambiguities, so you won't appease the minimalists. But your reforms are still too ambiguous, inconsistent, and tied to the unique logic of traditional English spelling to appease the rationalists.
4. Frankly, your behaviour is extremely offputting. 20% of your sentences are telling us how wonderful you are, how accomplished you are, how everyone recognises your genius and loves you and praises your work apart from us and did we know the president of the universe is giving you a medal on wednesday because of how great you are. 30% of your sentences are telling us we're idiots, wasting time with our stupid hobbies and failing to recognise your genius the way everyone else does. Why are we too stupid to be able to realise that everything you say is right? This includes a lot of outright mockery and some clear trolling. The 50% of your sentences that are actually about your projects are shouty, confrontational, close-minded, unreflective and uninterested in genuine engagement. Now of course, we all have our limitations. Plenty of people here don't like me either, for example. But it probably does contribute a lot to why nobody but the endlessly patient Xonen has been jumping to your defence, and why people have been jumping to disagree with you who otherwise might be silent. People are reluctant to be on the same side as an unpleasant person.
Personally, I think it also doesn't help that your English is clearly non-native and you make spelling mistakes even in your 'traditional' English. Now of course, the internet is a multinational place and that's great - we all make allowances for people whose English is not 100% polished. But it's never a good look when you simultaneously attack something and show you don't understand it. It makes it look like you just can't be arsed to learn it. Generally, the best people to reform something are those who fully understand it.
[of course, non-natives do have a place in these discussions, providing a learner's perspective. But I think the presentation has to be different when you're trying to persuade people to change something that you yourself don't own. There is a way to say "hey, this thing of yours, I've been having some problems with it, have you thought of changing it a little? Here are the difficulties I've been having..." - but that way is not to say "right, this thing of yours, it's not up to my standards, you need to change it so that I like it more, here's how it should be".
Just some thoughts, in case you really do want to be more persuasive.