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.
Don't project your personal interpretations on to me. I have been absolutely transparent in my goals and motives. You however have been trying really hard to use the fact that the trust system has been used against me as some kind of evidence that what I am arguing is not legitimate.... because the trust system has been abused against me.
The system is designed currently to allow people to make their own custom trust lists that users can change based on who's methodology they find most useful, of course like I explained before, when I do that it is evidence of "sly" practices. You aren't interested in a factual debate. You have a conclusion and you want to build a narrative around me to support it. You aren't interested in a legitimate debate about the topic. You are being quite disingenuous here yourself while accusing me of the same.