Which promotes gang-like retaliatory exclusions [1] (the first case is TheFuzzStone, who only excluded TMAN and suchmoon because they excluded him (for legitimate reasons)).
I feel like this is already going on and these changes actively work against it.
Some users agreeing to exclude certain users (privately or publicly) isn't any kind of gang nor retaliation.
For example, TMAN and owlcatz have excluded me without explanation even though I have reached out for one via PM. I'm conflicted whether or not to exclude them, because aside from their surprising and sudden exclusion of myself we have had nothing but positive interactions and even transactions (with owlcatz). Most of their feedback, in fact almost all of it I can agree with wholeheartedly. I am failing to find a legitimate reason for them to have done so, and so I am only able to conclude that their trust-list seems to be frivolous and unprincipled to some extent until further explanation is provided. I am giving these users the benefit of the doubt at the moment, and hoping they provide me with an explanation at some point, because I have never had a problem with them.
I wouldn't know. However, why would you exclude someone just because they exclude you especially given that you agree with most of their feedback? That's not how you are supposed to use this system. And no, they don't owe you an explanation just as you wouldn't owe anyone one.
I think there is justification behind excluding somebody that excludes you. Unless you are distrusting of yourself and approve of their exclusion, how can you do anything other than disagree with their exclusion? Once you realize that you disagree vehemently with their trust-network, it makes perfect sense to exclude that person from your own trust-network. All of this is assuming you disagree with their reasoning to exclude you in the first place, but in rare circumstances there is agreement and accountability from the excluded that wouldn't be appropriate in most cases. Self-Defense is different from retaliation, is it not?
Disagreeing with someone's exclusion of self, and then excluding them
because of it is
not self-defense. It is retaliation (look up definitions and examples if unsure).
Besides I suspect there could be some mutual annihilation / chicken-and-egg problem if exclusions are made to work the way you're suggesting. Let's say you get excluded by a bunch of people offended by you calling them "princess" and TheFuzzyStone's exclusion of you tips your balance to negative and you both have the same exact score otherwise. Which one of you should be excluded?
Although very unlikely, good question.
Yes., Retaliatory exclusions are going to be the new fad. Tie those with people being afraid to exclude and we have as much as a shit show as the last system
Kind-of. It will be very hard to keep track of everyone as is.
