This comment seems to have missed the point that by looking at who you are cooperating with you are declaring the "ranker on action value" to be what the people who cooperate with each other do. Which is a clever way of getting around the problem of having to have an independent machine that ranks actions that somehow people are supposed to agree isn't just a matter of assuming what is moral in your assumptions rather than discovering it as a conclusion.

The way I wrote this, I ranked your action. How different is it if I say "you are wrong' and downvote you, and people look at graphs of who downvoted whom?