Remove the ability to exclude a person from your trust network:
This feature sounds good on its face, but is actually harmful to the trust system and the community.
As an example, SaltySpitoon has BayAreaCoins on his trust list. if BAC leaves controversial ratings, he is unwilling to remove after a public discussion, if the rating is controversial, SaltySpitoon should remove BAC from his trust list. If BAC is unwilling to do this, a decision should be made to either accept the controversial rating, or to remove SaltySpitoon from your trust list. This will force people to be accountable for who they have on their trust lists.
I would agree with you, if this would only be about users' custom Trust lists. It would work fine there.
However, if a bad actor gets elected onto DT1, DefaultTrust loses it's value without exclusions. As of last Friday,
236 users had receive 250+ Merit, making them eligable to vote for DT1-members. As far as I know, even banned users can still change their Trust list and vote. Long-term, we can expect many more users with voting rights, and I don't think theymos wants to manually handle all DT1-exclusions.
Part of this is my rejection of the code is law mantra. I dont think there is any good excuse to not use good judgment when managing the DT network.
Further, the idea behind these proposals is to prevent any group of people from taking over the trust system. I mentioned that the way those in the DT network are selected should be separately reformed. It is my belief that someone who has a person who leaves inappropriate ratings on their trust list should not be on DT1, period. With exclusions, if there is a group of people who show a willingness to exclude anyone who doesnt leaves ratings the way they want, this group of people effectively control the entire trust system, and will effectively be immune from ever being held accountable if they were to scam in a way that is less than 100% clear is a theft, and is refusing to answer questions.