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.
IMO it'd be nice if in the future it's a subset of 100 among a pool of 250+.
Late to the party on this one. I don't think the fear of retaliation is working so far, and I get that maybe in a few years time it could. For now though the negatives don't carry the same weight, if you and your friends aren't in DT, or hang there by a thin line, your feedback soon means little. There are always the discussions people try to have to review feedback or attempt to improve themselves to have negatives reviewed. This generally just leads to more individuals jumping on the original feedback in a very tribal manner.
There's no easy fix but I like the randomizing factor. Have you considered cycling it with an offset? Using something like below would at least increase the frequency that the changes you speak about above could happen. It has the potential to cycle through more of the pool frequently. You'll either see the pool quickly become centralized through exclusions or begin to transform itself.
Spots 1-25 change on the 7th
Spots 26-50 change on the 15th
Spots 51-75 change on the 22nd
Spots 76-100 change on the 30th
Things I still think would be helpful are:
Displaying the Neutral feedback tally in the same way that Positive and Negative are displayed granting it visibility. A lot of BS feedback is personal opinion squabbles, that should be left as a neutral but aren't because it's not visible.
Having yourself lead a discussion topic towards finding consensus. Not as an imposing figure but to actively participate by engaging in 1 thread with everyone by presenting what your expectations were/are. Then using that as a jumping off point. This would be ideal over waiting for the proverbial shit to hit the fan before implementing a fix or making a statement.