I don't like how the current system is working at all.
I don't mind the current DT system however centralized it may be because I trust and have great respect for the vast majority of those currently enlisted.
I think they check eachother pretty well also when their are disagreements everyone comes together to make sense of the situation, even non-DT have a voice, and usually everyone steps away with continuing mutual respect. Everyone misunderstands or is wrong sometimes.
But, if you really don't like it for being a "top down" structure I think you could scrap the appointed positions of power part and rather use an algorithm to calculate the weight of everyones sent feedback to be summed to each accounts final trust score.
Something like..
[(Activity/1000)Rank](Trust/20) = Weight of left feedback
Variables for "Rank" could be something like Legendary=1 Hero=0.75 Sr.=0.5 Full=0.25 with all lower ranks zero and "Trust" would be the feedback leavers current trust score. If the solution is negative (negative summed trust) weight=0
(Abuse resistance)
For a 900 activity hero with a trust score of 50 leaving a positive trust [(900/1000)0.75](50/20)=1.6875 round to 2 decimals would give the feedback receiver +1.69 to their trust score.
For a (very trusted old member) legendary with 2000 activity and 200 trust score giving a positive [(2000/1000)1](200/20)= 20 would leave +20
So the more established and trusted a member is, the harder their trust hits (more weight), and you would have to be atleast a full member, with net positive trust, for your feedback to carry any weight at all.
A persons Trust score would be the sum of all received feedback. Negative left feedback would just be negative in the sum and subtract from the final score with equal weight.
In the risked BTC column you could give the option to enter a modifier from 0 to 1 so a person could reduce the weight of their feedback if they want.
He could type in "1.25 #0.5" so the legendary example above could leave only +10, or type "1.25 #0.1" to leave only +2. (for 1.25 risked BTC example)
[(Activity/1000)Rank](Trust/20)
(user modifier)So a person could tone down the weight of the feedback they leave if they feel it is appropriate so they wouldn't have to be so conservative with every feedback they leave which is the case now. Maybe leave it continually editable for later changes.
If you wanted to keep the Time part you could add [(Activity/1000)Rank](Trust/20)
(Time)(user modifier) where each month equals 0.1 maxing out in 10 months as 1 so it would grow throughout 10 months to its full strength.
I'm no mathematician and I just chose my numbers to try to get a reasonably ranged result.
I don't much like to make suggestions because I am just a nobody and not a genius but I think a system like this would be cool to see.
I don't think
this should be done but rather should be considered and brainstormed upon unless their are serious flaws in my logic I am not seeing.
I would probably just leave it alone because it is a lot better than nothing. Maybe an algorithmic system like this could be implemented in parallel with the current system at first so the old system doesn't have to get completely scrapped while working out the bugs and adjusting to the new system.
I don't consider this "a suggestion for alteration to the current DT1 list" so won't make an OP about it.