Whenever you're crowdsourcing, bad actors are a possibility. You'd usually track agreement to root out both the bad and incompetent actors, but what you're sayi

Whenever you're crowdsourcing, bad actors are a possibility. You'd usually track agreement to root out both the bad and incompetent actors, but what you're saying would essentially amount to a 51%-attack. That is, with enough bad actors working together, consensus stops being trustworthy. I see two ways to address this (there are probably more, this is just me thinking out loud): 1. Increase the size of the pool of total reviewers so a 51%-attack becomes infeasible. Incentives can be offered to the rest of the community to get them to participate. (This is similar to what bitcoin tries to do, with the added obstacle of actor anonymity. In an anonymous system, 1 bad actor can trivially simulate an arbitrary number of actors. Bitcoin tries to solve this by increasing the operating cost for each perceived actor. Counter Strike can be seen as having a fixed lump operating cost: purchase price of the game + time investment to accrue enough XP to qualify for the cheater jury. ) 2. Create an additional set of people you trust unconditionally. (These can be people you train and pay a wage.) This means you can spot-check anyone, and a consensus between bad actors is an investigative clue (to find more bad actors) rather than a hindrance.