1) I hit you in the face for no reason.
2) You propose I stop hitting you in the face.
3) You benefit from not being hit in the face.
Is your proposal self serving? I would say so. Is that wrong or dishonest? Seems like a stretch at best. In summary you are literally using the fact that I am being attacked to discredit my objections to it. You know what that is called? Circular logic.
If I proposed you stop hitting me in the face via the guise of a forum post proposing best practice for hitting people in the face objectively and providing a list of users I thought might be well-suited to judging when it's correct to hit people in the face, rather than simply just coming out and saying it? Kinda, yeah.
Cool story bro. You are just talking out of your ass now. Noble effort though. I will work on honing my ESP skills so I can object to being abused via the trust system before it happens next time.
Bolded part wasn't there when I hit reply. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying it's some sort of Machiavellian-esque plot. You've just gone about it in what, to me at least, appears to be a slightly sly way.
Coming back to the logic part, you've included a list of suggested exclusions from this little brigade of yours. How does excluding people from the group that would compel them to be more objective result in you achieving your goal of them not leaving you undesirable tags? I'm not quite following that part.