Unfortunately, the conclusion results in the trite observation: if everyone is trusted, nobody is trusted.

If we're doing this in the scope of the entire sample then I don't see the use of individualizing trust. One important thing to note is that the idea of a grouping of individuals in DT1 is inevitable and can always be construed regardless of the distribution of trust and distrust throughout the system.

Any time there is mutual trust, one could claim (without any astoundingly explicable reason, mind) that there is a conspiracy, a gang, et al. To forgo sensibilities and leap towards asinine "revolutions" in a privately-owned forum with administrators is to have a childlike fit the likes of the Reputation board.