Built and voted on the party doors
Trust is built and voted on at the party level — WeCitizensR.com, WeCitizensD.com, WeCitizensL.com and WeCitizensSocialism.com. Not on this door.
Why there and not here
Because vouching only means something between people who have some way of knowing. A community that works together — on the same seats, the same bills, the same local problems — accumulates the evidence that makes a judgement about a member worth anything. A cross-party aggregate does not have that; it has strangers assessing strangers, which is how a trust system becomes a popularity contest.
So the voting happens where the knowing happens.
What a trust score answers, and what it never answers
- Answers: is there one real, believable person behind this account.
- Never answers: what that person believes, who they vote for, or whether anybody agrees with them.
That separation is a hard rule, and it is the reason the mechanism is safe to run at all. A trust system that quietly encoded agreement would be a machine for removing dissent from a community, which is the opposite of the thing being built.
Anonymity goes all the way to the top
A fully pseudonymous citizen can reach the top rung of the ladder. Trust here means there is one real person behind this, not we know your name. Anonymity is a first-class safety feature of this product, not a loophole in it — some of the people this movement most needs cannot participate under their own names, and a system that quietly excluded them would be excluding exactly the wrong people.
Not merit, and not karma
Three different ledgers, kept apart on purpose:
- Trust — is this a real, believable citizen. This area.
- Meritocracy — how much weight a citizen's assessment carries in a decision.
- Karma — recognition for logged work actually done.
Collapsing any two of them would let standing in one buy standing in another, which is the failure mode every reputation system eventually finds.
Also in this area
- The read-only roll-up — what this door carries instead.
- The mesh, and what it defends against — why any of this exists.