Quote from: Lauda on June 11, 2019, 10:20:30 AM

Quote from: theymos on June 11, 2019, 08:14:06 AM

I was always intending to choose a random subset of 100 once more than 100 became eligible. This creates more people who have a credible threat of retaliation: if you give someone negative trust for some stupid reason, you have reason to worry about them or a close friend of theirs negative-trusting you for a similarly stupid reason, if not in this month, then in a future month. I think that it pushes people (without forcing people) toward acting in-line with consensus, so that any retaliation against your sent negative trust always gets the sender excluded definitively.

Or it enables semi-random accounts to permanently keep you tagged because they ran an "election" in some local section. I think you've underestimated how evil your forum members are, given the right opportunity.

A good case:
1) I've excluded a big bulk of people from a "turkish election" (this is not decentralized in any way and if I did something similar, you'd have 10x the gang threads you have right now) here: thread.
2) I have been retaliatory tagged by a verified scammer a long time ago: profile.
3) The user seems to find themselves now in DT2 due to his buddies. Quite a trustworthy list indeed.
4) A few users have been PM'd about this, some of which are in the exclusion list[1].

[1] I took the opposite path of getting adequate number of exclusions and went straight to the root of the problem. You can follow this in order to see how pawns will not behave according to your theory.

This election was fair and natural. You know Theymos can see all ip logs but you didn't behave fairly.

Quote

2) I have been retaliatory tagged by a verified scammer a long time ago: profile.
3) The user seems to find themselves now in DT2 due to his buddies. Quite a trustworthy list indeed.

What a lie. Goraset isn't DT2 and he didn't join the election.