I had a similar experience in primary school in Spain (though punishment was never phisical).
The incentive is that if the class is made of, say, 30 kids, you are appointed once and then suffer through the appointments of the other 29 kids (a little less in practice since known troublemakers won't be put in 'power' for obvious reasons). There are plenty of opportunities for mob punishment if your mates don't feel you're being fair.
>I had a similar experience in primary school in Spain (though punishment was never phisical).
Same in Italy, though I never recall any actual punishment (not physical nor on paper) was ever administered on the base of these - let's say "opinionated" - reports.
The blackboard was divided in two columns by a vertical chalk line, on the left one would write at the top "good" and on the right "bad".
It was mostly a game (I believe it was intentional to just keep us kids busy while the teacher was briefly away) and a way for the kids to exercise in knowing the names of all the kids and reading and writing them, the "name taker" would start writing all the kids names and surnames on the "good" side.
Then he/she would write among the bad ones someone (for whatever reason), who would try to convince the "name taker" to delete his/her name and re-write it on the "good" side.
After a few minutes the blackboard was full of deletions/rewrites on both sides.
The teacher already knew anyway which one were the "good" and which one were the "bad" ones and at the most made a verbal reprimand (of two types) to the kids that were on the "bad" column finally:
1) "I knew you were going to ...., why don't you stop it for a change" (to the ones re-known as troublemakers)
2) "I am surprised you did ...., you won't go far by doing this" (to the ones re-known as being tranquil)
The N-1 could name-take the name-taker on the same day if they can achieve consensus before the teacher comes back.
The N-1 simply have to wait for the teacher to come back, then explain that the name-taker was abusing his position, hoping the teacher will release them from punishment for name-taking the name-taker. AFAICT, there's no incentive for the N-1 to lie about whether or not the name-taker was taking advantage of them.
Eould you trust the N-1 if they suddenly started speaking with a unified voice? This from a class you don’t trust to keep working without supervision.
What incentive is there for them to unify against the name-taker if the name-taker was being fair? N-1 people aren't just going to cry wolf in synchrony, because they don't trust each other. Can't a set of untrusted nodes still achieve consensus assuming more than half are good players? It's unlikely that over half of the class consists of class clowns.
The incentive is that if the class is made of, say, 30 kids, you are appointed once and then suffer through the appointments of the other 29 kids (a little less in practice since known troublemakers won't be put in 'power' for obvious reasons). There are plenty of opportunities for mob punishment if your mates don't feel you're being fair.