“Fighting corrupt behavior in a subjective world means that actions have consequences. Any action without consequences will be abused by a minority if they can gain even a small benefit.”

Ok, I’m beginning to get re-assured…

“The most basic consequence is a loss of reputation of an individual user.”

But the issue we are encountering is that due to abuse, the wrong people are losing reputation due to what amouts to smear campaigns using the flagging system.

“A community consisting of mostly good people can fight of an infection of anti-social individuals hoping to get something for nothing, but only if they have the power to deny rewards or claw it back.”

We don’t appear to have this power and shunning doesn’t work

“Overall the community will be more civilized if there is properly balanced tit-for-tat.”

But there isn’t and this seems to be where relying PRIMARILY on game theory has become an issue. Yes game theory is a very valuable tool, but it appears you are assuming a level playing field which is not the case. If someone has a huge stack of chips while the rest only have a few, then what is the most likely outcome? The outcome we are seeing unfold before us I’d say. The argument that the 1% benefits the 99% by the “trickle down” effect is shown to be false in modern Capitalist societies – how is it going to be any different by placing the word “Anarcho in front of it?

“Banning Down Votes is like Banning Guns”

Great….then ban down voting!

“They will use their guns to secure privatized profits at the hands of those without guns.”

This sounds great in theory, I live in the UK – how many deaths by gun occur in the US compared to the UK? You would implement a theory even if it caused many actual human lives lost? Now I know this, I fully understand why you would implement anything if it was aligned to your particular ideology or theory even in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary and even if it caused serious harm to others….very, very concerning

“I am a proponent of non-violent solutions”

But you would implement a system whereby everyone is armed so the likelihood of violence is greater, the evidence is that there would be more deaths, but the more important thing is that you’ve stuck by your ideology?

“ An armed society is a polite society” –Heinlein

Hardly surprising! Great if the ultimate goal is politeness and etiquette, nevermind the body count though eh? I’d prefer people spoke their minds and had freedom of speech without fear of being shot for being fucking rude…

“If the rules favor corruption”

They currently do……

“….and don't provide tools to fight it”

They currently don’t….

“….then eventually everyone (including the good people) will become corrupt.”

Brilliant…..job done then eh?

Just to exercise my freedom of speech and to be deliberately rude - I have never read such a load of bollocks in all my life.... so shoot me!