Alright, so this looks to me like TECSHARE doesn't like a particular clique, so he's recommending (or even creating) his own--and at the same time is deriding the formation of cliques. A'ight, then.
The members of this mob rely on maintaining arbitrary unwritten rules in order to maintain a system of selective enforcement that enables them to stifle criticism, competition, and functions as a gate keeping mechanism under which none shall pass until the knee is bent and tribute is paid.
I'd say you're going a bit overboard with that statement, and I'd also suggest that you have yet to formulate any written, non-arbitrary rules for anyone to go by, if such a thing were even feasible. Ever try to herd cats? And in any case, most of us human beings tend to function in life without a rulebook of our own. Yes, there are written laws handed down from the mountain of government, but that's another story.
Would you prefer that the rules of bitcointalk be the be-all, end-all guide for conduct on the forum? If you say yes, I'd point out that scamming
is allowed here and yet I don't think an ethical person would condone that.
Anyway, any community forms standards over time. As an example, that's how account selling got to be frowned upon, though not everyone agrees that it's bad for the forum or could increase scams. And that's fine, we're all free to disagree about that--but DT members should be free to tag account sellers, too. And if sentiment about account sales turned 180 degrees, any DT members tagging account sellers would probably be excluded from trust lists and the problem would go away on its own.
TECSHARE, I understand your words but there seems to be some dissonance and I'm not exactly clear what you want to accomplish with those recommended inclusions/exclusions other than forming another set of standards which are anything but clear. In fact, I can't see into your brain so I don't know what they are. Maybe if you wrote them down?