The in/up/down/out living ontology pattern abstracts rank issues without making assumptions about the correlation between in/out and up/down (that is, the map is two-dimensional) nor specifying the range of inner and outer circles, distrust relations that lead to these rankings, nor domain of concern. Such patterns are fiction unless factionally-defined.
 simple model of factional views
Any factionally-defined term or repute can be specified in terms of at least these four underlying abstract metrics, which have no ontological bias:
- The degree to which agreeing with that person or using that term tends to cause one to be included, e.g. as measured by BCCs or some such criteria.
- The degree to which this tends to cause one to be disagreed with less, that is, to be upranked or not be contradicted - this is not always good, see disagree, LOWest and especially LOWest Troll for why contradictions are essential to learning
- The degree to which this tends to cause one to be made less visible, e.g. censored, moderated, reposted selectively, or downranked.
- The degree to which this tends to cause one to be ad hominemed out of consideration, e.g. ad hominem delete, ban person, etc.
Note that these are not symmetric, i.e. one is thrown out faster than one is invited in, one rises up more slowly than one falls down. Nor can they be said to interact in obvious ways, one may take oneself out without ever going down and this affects how one comes back in more than it affects their chances of going up any further. For example, a politician may shift parties and their history may not matter much based on whether it's perceived as a personality or ideological conflict etc.
Since in/out has apparently more feminine implications and up/down more masculine (women perceive in/out more readily than up/down, males the opposite) these factors should be considered in teaching as well.
 operational definition of instructional ethics
An ethical troll faction applies open politics in force to limit the powers of all four of these roles. The ECG distrust metric is intended to be minimum when an OPIF audit, LO audit and Triple Bottom Line (including ecological footprint) audit are all at their minimum.