Topic: The DT system needs to change. (Read 870 times)

Do you in anyway think that the management of Trust system has not been managed well and caused great legends who have more influence outside of the forum to see this forum as bygone relic? The trust system was introduced for a purpose and such purpose it’s serving currently. The trust system might be misused or not well handled or abused by some members who have the privilege to be one, maybe through their subordinate they’re able to give a DT2 rank. If at all a change need to be made, facts needs to be there for such members that have abused the system. And also for DT2 to be giving that position, maybe they should pass through two more confirmation by other DT1 member, since some people feel they’re abusing the system. 



It is difficult to make a modification as stated. It must pass a number of evaluations made by representatives with voting rights. It will take time to come up with ideas to amend the rule; it won't be simple right away.

Roughly 99% of the people currently on DT have very little or 0 significance to crypto space outside of this forum.

Thus the greater crypto community has started to largely ignore and consider this forum a bygone relic. DT1 is a joke, Trust system is a joke, a joke at the expense of real legends that founded and made this forum famous.

@theymos should know better, perhaps he is the only person left who gives a shit about the DT lists who also has any clout in the real world, so if your entire political system has collapsed into an irrelevant echo chamber, it's high time for a change.

A change that should have happened about 3 years ago when most people had greater hopes left for satoshi's legendary forum and this place hadn't become a ghost town outside of signature cronies and salaried yes men...

The advantage is obvious: being able to improve the forum by sharing your view on who can or can't be trusted. If you're not on DT, it's often overlooked.

That's obvious too: in any democracy, people disagree, and some abuse their power.

I did that already

First of all, what exactly is the advantage of DT power? why so much drama about it?
As a DT, I didn't recognize any special benefits, except that I get more PMs from newbies and spammers to help them solve the red tag mostly.
I would say that DT status is overrated, most often because of the created conspiracy theory and accusing DT members of joining clans. mostly drama started by trolls or spammers, who failed in their original intention of spamming the forum.


someone proposed to introduce more levels of DT, maybe it could be a solution, where the number of necessary inclusions for each level would be increased.

I'm thinking it can be interesting, maybe LoyceV could use the data he collects to recalculate what the trust system would look like with these changes. I believe that it is feasible if he would include a couple of conditions like a minimum 2 or 3 inclusion for DT1.


I already wrote about it, but I will repeat it again. A couple of users who delete their trust list do not mean much, not even enough to be excluded from the DT1 list.
I believe that only if the top 20-30 members from the list https://loyce.club/trust/ranking/ insisted that they be removed or blacklisted, would cause some change. again, the forum would certainly continue to function, there is even no guarantee that it would be of lower quality with all that changes.

I was thinking of supporting the initiative to yahoo62278 and dkbit98, but I'm really lazy to filter the list because I wouldn't touch my distrust list.

Bounty managers do not care if a user rehashes jargons on their fake social media accounts, with dozens of fake followers and then spam the project to death without even knowing what its utility is; it's no surprise they do not care much about the trust system.

Imo, the trust system has for a long time not been used at it was intended, and many joined in (giving feedbacks and flags) to attain a status symbol, rather than to keep the forum clean, leading to what we have today.

Can it be fixed?
I do not think a perfect system exists, and any which is created would be subject to how it is used, but some changes can be made to improve it.

Thanks for the info, that archive from 2019 is a useful start here. Notably there were many less users eligible back then, many less than I thought.


I don't think I'm suggesting for it to have high restrictions by comparison, simply as low restrictions, as opposed to much lower restrictions (as is the case now). For example if there were 700 members who had earnt 10 merit back in January 2019, and now there are 700+ members* who have now earnt 100 merit, then the restrictions would be just as low as they previously were wouldn't they?


Thanks again, but was hoping there would already be some charts available for amount of merit earnt by users here, without having to compile the data myself  

*Similar to the chart from here (referenced above), but if it were to include all merit earnt by users, not just for rank requirements, hence it's far from accurate.


I see your point, sort of, but the issue here is that DT1 eligibility therefore becomes increasingly easier over time for all, to the point where there aren't 100+ members, but 200+, then 400+, etc. It's maintained for new users by only requiring 10 merit, but as DT1 eligibility is also based on inclusions from merit earning individuals, I'm not suggesting making it more difficult for new users to be included in DT1 I don't think.

For example increasing inclusion requirements to 100/500 would make it more difficult for new and old users alike, as the requirement of 10 earnt merit to be eligble would remain the same.

Hopefully that rambling makes some kind of sense...

I have data on eligibility: https://loyce.club/trust/ranking/
This was archived a month after theymos implemented the current DefaultTrust system: https://archive.ph/PmrZn

From what I remember, it was intended to have low restrictions, so users who joined later still stand a chance.

My overview of Merit earned (on very large HTML pages) starts here. But it may be easier to just parse the data from merit.all.txt (31 MB). This file has every Merit transaction and the exact time.

It's maintained for new users, and gets easier for older users. The alternative would be that new users barely stand a chance (kinda like how they can't catch up on Activity).

I was thinking very similar recently, based on how many users had previously earnt 10 and 250 merits compared to how many have now. I was trying to find data/charts on how many users had earnt this amount when DT1 eligibility had changed, in order to propose what it should be now, so that DT1 eligibility would remain at the same "difficulty" level. I'd guess there are as many users who have now earnt 100 as 10 back then, and 500 for those who earnt 250, but that's just a guess. It'd be interesting to see how many users would remain eligible if the requirements for DT1 were increased from 10/250 to 100/500 for example. I don't think it would remove that many users, but simply return the number of eligible DT1 members back to how many there were originally - at least that's the idea and theory for increasing the difficulty.

If anyone can point me towards data earnt user-merit data from DT1 changes it'd be appreciated. While I agree with other proposals such as DT2 requires +2 strength, I think fundamentally DT1 eligibility becoming easier and easier as time goes on (with more merit distributed) will forever be a worsening issue until it's resolved. The eligibility difficulty should be maintained in my opinion, not lowered over time.

I understand that the question is rhetorical, as it seems to me that this has already been discussed many times, and I think it is because management prefers that this traffic stays here rather than go elsewhere.

If it were as simple as if they go elsewhere, the rest of the traffic remains the same and therefore there is more net quality in the forum, it would be desirable, but you do not know if it will reduce the overall traffic of the forum even more.

The real question is: why does Bitcointalk give a flying fuck about bounty spammers? It's allowed to spam millions of links to spam on social media.
And as long as they don't pay something that has real value, but only in tokens they made up by themselves, spamming has no real cost and only benefits to them.

If you change your mind later on, I have a backup

That's likely because most people who really care about this issue have been around a long time and realize how futile polls are.  

At this point I'm almost indifferent about the trust system as a whole.  It's so broken, so unnecessarily complicated with flags and red/green/black feedback, trust lists, default trust, etc., that I just don't care anymore.  I'm not sure if Theymos designed it or what, but the whole thing is like some Rube Goldberg contraption an engineering student made as a project to impress his teacher.

Plus I'm pretty sure nothing works as intended anymore.  Bounty managers don't even care if their participants have red trust, and that ought to tell you something about how the system is viewed by the average user who doesn't give a flying fuck about bitcointalk.  

I think I'm going to clear my trust list tonight.  Just wipe it clean.

Hear, hear, my dear.

Many of the changes brought by theymos few years ago were very good ones in my opinion. DT has been very centralized before and in my opinion, the current trust system is more aligned with Bitcoin's decentralized approach. It should be possible for everyone to have a vote in DT, while scammers or trolls can still be restricted quickly, therefore it was a good decision from theymos.
A decentralized DT will also encourage participation.


I'm in favor to change DT1 inclusions to determine DT2 and increase required inclusions.
Only one DT1 inclusion can be easily abused and 2 would be better for sure.
If there's still abuse, present in on Reputation and DT will review it. That's DT's job.

But I'm not sure if clearing our trust lists to achieve changes is really necessary.
Why can't our moderation simply give a statement if they are in favor of changing requirements?
Creating a new topic on Meta should be enough but since lots of things are taking extremely long, like our new forum design, I'm also clueless what to do.

Emptying our trust lists just to get a response from the moderation is a bit too much.
We all know the trolls are still around and they can activate their accounts very fast. In case of an attemped hostile takeover we would have more drama than with our status quo.
Trolls, scammers, sigspammers are just waiting to get back to their business.
It's a shame anyway that some accounts are spamming for 1xbit while being negged...
If there's a tipping point and they can take over DT, we might need a reset from theymos.
Similar for some centralized shitcoins.  

I'm not in support to risk it, while I'm still for more required inclusions.


Since DT is discussed here, I would like to add some more points:

- Bring back a column for "risked BTC amount". It's very useful and maybe some people might give out "nice guy" feedbacks less leniently.
- The current space for feedback text is not enough. We can barely describe and justify some trusts. It's currently limited to 3 rows, can't we make it at least 5 rows? I know it got abused by trolls when they posted walls of 50 rows or more but 3 rows are almost nothing. Or increase available rows per account rank. Up to Full Member get 3 rows, Sr. Member 4 rows, Hero 5 rows and Legendary 6 rows...
- Increase limits from 10 / 250 Merit to 50 / 500 Merit. Merit scores are increasing daily and are far away from the meaning when DT was changed. 10 Merit is obtainable by almost every troll account very quickly.

---

For a more decentralized system, each DT account will have less power, which is effectively better in case someone turns out to be a scammer / hacked.
I would compare it to Bitcoin and Shitcoins:
Bitcoin is very decentralized, many nodes and even miners.
Shitcoins are reliant on a few (trusted) nodes, often hand picked by the developers. Very centralized.
A few nodes going offline / malicious are a big problem. Take Solana how often it crashed down.

Effective is for me, to weed out scammers while enabling broad participation of as many accounts as possible without DT getting easily compromised.

You made a whole lots of sense here and I strongly believe that what you stated is what theymos also stand for. In as much as the voting system remains correct and in the hands of the admin, I think we are safe. I have been around not for so long, so I can't just imagine how many DT1 and DT2 were there. But I know the fewer the DT members, the stronger the system and the more easy for it to be hijacked and turned into a gang or a cult.
Again, if the larger the DT members, the less powerful and maybe effective it will be. It therefore means that everyone will have to read the feedback on profiles and decide what exactly to believe or not.

Haha, like I said I don't have any more influence than anyone else. In fact, theymos is far more likely to listen to a community in support of something, rather than listen to a singular user, I would've thought, unless they already agree with that user. I might be wrong there, but I guess it's much more likely that the community would get the attention of theymos, especially from a urgency point of view. 

I do think we'll see adjustments given time though. I'm not suggesting that we don't do anything because we'll never get the perfect system, I'm just saying that these things need to be considered carefully. Although, I'm probably in support of the most popular suggestion being made. I don't see too many drawbacks to it, and think it'll make a little difference.

The trail mode is already over as this is now 3 years old .
There is and was drama before the Trust system has changed , it was even more drama as now.
In my opinion the protest and empty the Trust List will change nothing and this makes it even more worst when the next monthly DT update will come.
Even when there will be a upgrade or update on the Trust system it will takes not long and the next will be complaining and the drama will start from scratch.

I am sure that all members (including you) won't clear their trust list, so I don't worry at all about forum, and if you think this is very important for you than continue business as usual.
You keep telling people to create custom trust list but I don't see much benefit from that, except maybe for abusers.

Nah, honestly I am sick of all the drama some DT wannabes are creating recently, so I won't be coming back until I see some changes.
I am sure you will do just fine without me, and I don't consider I did anything really important in this forum, but I am not going anywhere.

Be a good sport and consider telling theymos to consider reducing number of DT members, especially DT2 inclusions.
I would appreciate if anyone could create good new topic with realistic suggestions for improving overall DT, for start this could be collection of all previously made suggestions.
I am aware that perfect system will never be created, but let's start making small changes and move in good direction.

Really? I always thought I leave enough room for a debate, well, noted.



Limiting the number means closer to an oligarchy, common, let's be real, having half of the people deciding means what it means, fewer people in charge of deciding, even if it's not an oligarchy is definitely closer to one that having 2500 is.
Again, I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm not saying this system is good, just that it is what it is, I do not think it's normal for just one moron to have the launch codes of a nuclear missile, I don't think it's a great idea to hold a national referendum each year if we need to drop a bomb or not! Seeing how the guy that wrote the scam report format got arrested and jailed for credit card fraud, I'm really curious in two years how we will look at this case that caused it all and who is wrong or who is right.

As suchmoon said, the system is as good as we make it, and I'll add that if people are complete jerks they will be able to make it as bad as it can get, no matter the design, just like the drama you see now is not caused by the system, is caused by the ones using it.

I have respect for quite a few users outside of DefaultTrust, and I don't use DefaultTrust as a way of gauging someone integrity or trustworthiness I don't think many others will agree, but I see the DefaultTrust as a way of flagging up issues you might have not been aware of. For example, it's almost impossible to be in every section, and know what's going on for the average user, so they might miss out on some of the scams going around or what x user did. So, the DefaultTrust is a way of flagging up issues. However, I wouldn't be against the flag system replacing the trust system with some adjustments. Maybe, reducing the amount of influence that users have individually would be a nice thing to see.

I'm spit balling just like everyone else though. I'm not sure I know the answer to fixing it to that the majority are happy.

Thats the thing. Internal feud or somehow reputation to reputation issue has rises sometime which affect the trust system as a whole. Of course others value its important having a role on DT but some never really care for it either they are in or not. The impact it will create will spill and obviously gonna affect with the general concept of trust system.

This is should be used accordingly. Reputation shouldnt be based if not on the dt list. I would give respect to a number 1 dt which have equal respect to a lower rank regardless the difference.

Personally, I don't use it much. I think over time it has lost its importance. There's been a lot of internal feuds which have some what discredited the system. However, an argument to be had is its our responsibility as a community to sort of drop those users off the list if they're having such a negative influence. However, that's the problem the community is split, divided. Some of us agree with one side, and then others agree with the other side. I generally see points made from both parties, and hence why I don't get involved.

I think the implementation of the trust system was a decent one, but its always going to have problems when we've got such personalities in the community. I also think that the trust system isn't being used for its intended purpose, and that's trading. Its become X doesn't like Y, and sort of lost meaning. I made the decision a while ago, that going forward I'd only use the trust system as a way of rating transactions that I've made on the forum, and throw the reputational side out the window, unless there was a particular problematic case. However, flags were introduced to kind of take over from that, at least somewhat.

I think it would be beneficial to have some sort of trust system, but I'm of the opinion that the current implementation has been lessened of importance over time. That's not a fault of anyone mind, that's just how these types of systems often work.

We are always going to have internal feuds, and I'm not saying that they aren't warranted at times either. The issue is when those internal feuds spill on over to a system used by the majority of the community, that might not be particularly interested in that feud, but ultimately get influenced by it because of the impact it has had.

However, my personal opinion doesn't have any more weight than the next user. Users are absolutely going to be in disagreement on me with the above, and that's their right. I guess what I'm getting at is to implement a system without disadvantages like above is going to be incredibly difficult, because even if you do, not everyone is going to support it anyway.

Because theres an abuse maybe on it. If the system isnt good then change it the way they think its fit for the forum. If DT system is remove on the forum, is there gonna be a chaos or riot on forum members? Maybe its better to abolish it if its not healthy anymore. But surely there will be a resistance for that.  But in your opinion, how important is this DT system @welsh? I think some considered it as form of rank, respect, reputation, when you are in the DT1 or DT2 but does it should work like that in terms of discussion. I believe the one with right explanation regardless of his rank, dt or not should be respected and acknowledge.

I believe theymos has hinted in the past that they weren't quite happy with how the trust system was working. I think all of us can probably agree on that though. It's fixing it that is the problem. It's not an easy task, as a system that remains decentralised, and not moderated for the most part, is always going to bring problems. Especially, when you have a community which is rather divided on a lot of things. That's not saying our community is bad though, it's just what happens when there's a large amount of people involved in discussions.

Users will step on each others toes a little bit, and they'll have differences of opinion. That much is expected, but it's mitigating the influence one person has, at least enough to not cause a snowball effect. However, you want an individual to have enough of a voice to be able to influence things in a good way.

There's been several suggestions which I believe would help in the overall picture, but by no means would it solve every problem we have, and likely there isn't a perfect solution. If I was to wager a guess, and this isn't based on anything other than previous public comments theymos has made in the past regarding to the trust system, I would expect it to change in the future, its just a question of when, and how.

One or two people emptying their trust lists is like a drop into the ocean it has no effect on the DT system. Just so you know, a new set of 100+ DT1 were elected last week to the already existing DT1 list, and that election alone created more than 200+ DT2 members, so even if 100 people boycotted the DT system today, it would not break the system.

When people become powerless to a system, they tend to break it; the same people who have been manipulating the system for a long time are the same people who are begging for a change because they had a taste of their own medicine.

There has been a lot of drama on the reputation board, I expected this type of drama at the end; the more people who join the DT, the less powerful they become and the better the DT system becomes..

It CAN be manipulated and has been a weapon between the forum's elites for years now, it's a "scratch my back I scratch your back system now" when a certain elite member of the DT gang got flaged and red tagged a few weeks ago all his DT gangs were busy twerking in our PMs trying to manipulate a valid negative feedbacks so yes there is a lot going on behind the scenes, when you become a DT you will see the clear picture.

theymos is more active and involved in the DT system than you think; he is aware of all the manipulation and drama going on; he reshuffles and elects the DT1 members every week; and if he sees a need for any change in DT, he will propose it first.

Any such forum "system" is about as good as its members make it. theymos wanted wider representation in DT and he's probably unlikely to make it more restrictive, but with or without such change its ultimately up to the members, mainly DT1 members, to make the best use of the system.

Back at the start of this new vote-based DT system I used to think that the level of personal responsibility (for including/excluding DT2 members) exhibited by the old DT1 would improve in the new one but that obviously didn't happen. There is a huge passive majority of DT1 members who don't seem to care whom they include or how the trust system is used. And even if the more active minority tries to mitigate some of the garbage (e.g. by excluding self-scratchers) it doesn't really work that well due to the lottery.

Don't get me wrong, I support the idea of making it more difficult to get into DT (DT2 in particular) but I think it's a band aid for a broken leg.


I ain't gone nowhere

As for "protesting", I'd argue that if someone doesn't have time and/or interest to keep up with the trust system or fundamentally disagrees with how the system is used, then getting blacklisted or otherwise removed from it is better that just leaving their trust lists unmaintained or going against the flow with a huge red trail of drama.

I started using the trust system few weeks ago after being convinced by 1miau and LoyceV. Before creating my Default Trust, I raised a concern about my fear about the trust system. Let me quote part of the thread I created.

I asked The question due to my then layman's understanding of the trust system, but I was told that the system is well checked and any attempt to manipulate will have the user being excluded from DT by theymos. I proceeded to creating my custom list.

Surprisingly, few weeks after creating my trust list, a renowned campaign manager and a reputable member of this forum alleged emptied his trust list in protest of the current trust system. I quote him


The words I put in italics and underline are strong words.
Now, I have seen what other members have to say about this, as some have also emptied their trust list in same protest.
Then LoyceV isn't in support of emptying one's trust list, as it will make the system more vulnerable. I also had to mention 1miau to know his opinion, because it matters to me in as much as it's about trust. Then, I am yet to see anyone stating categorically that the Trust system isn't or cannot be manipulated. Is there truly some manipulations behind the scene?

---

I had to revisit theymos thread about Default Trust changes and read carefully what he said about the trust system as a tool for retaliation. I'm thinking if the retaliation and the politics theymos mentioned is what is playing out.
Could it be that the reason of the uproar is that once a centralized and prestigious trust power is now decentralized to give power to even a newbie to be on the DT?
Well, see what theymos said about the Trust changes.


However, in theymos last paragraph, he implied that the Default Trust changes is in trial mode for some months. I am keen to see what he will likely come out with after these dramas and protests.

The system is most certainly not satisfactory for the exact reason you cited.  Any newbie can be added to DT2 just because one DT1 member includes him.  That is a recipe for abuse, and it's been happening a lot.  Go trough any drama thread and look for newbies that took the side of a DT1 member, next thing you know that DT1 member is adding that newbie to his trust list, and BAM newbie on DT2.  Suchmoon's proposal in the thread linked by Poker Player would mitigate a lot of that.  It won't prevent it from happening, but it would make much less likely.

Making it more difficult to be included in DT2 is very likely to prevent DT cliques from developing, and reduces any one DT1 member's ability to manipulate the system.

---

^This!

@yahoo62278 and @dkbit98, I really hope both of you will reconsider.  I understand your rationale, and often I think being in DT1 is not worth the headache.  But that headache is exactly why we need people like you; rational, thoughtful, restrained individuals to counter balance those who revel in the power.  If more people like you quit DT you'll be leaving the trust system to the abusers.

@suchmoon, we need you back too!

Says the guy with negative trust. Of course if you ask around the forum 99/100 people with red trust will say it should be removed because they did nothing wrong or were a target of abuse.
The best part is that you want it to be removed because of "freedom". Red trust is exactly that. People can leave their comment on your profile if they think you did something wrong and you are free to do the same to them, or to ignore it.

Correct, DT=default trust and some are merit sources but being on DT doesn't make you a merit source. It's a totally different thing.

What is the meaning of DT? is it DefaultTrust? Are they merit source?

There's another thing the forum needs:
Advertise this! Can it be on top of each page (like "News" once in a while? I just counted: only 5053 users (except for users with no posts) have a custom Trust list. That could be much more.

Actually imho it could make sense to change this or that to give less powers to some.
This could maybe give some less room for manipulations.


This is a very interesting idea. I like it. Can we do this, please?


I agree.

---

Something I've been thinking on was that it may be helpful to differentiate between "whose trust rating you want to see colored" and "who you want to vote for".
This way the votes will also be clearer, this way people won't say that they trust this or that account because of some trades done and so on.

You like to be categorical.

Where does the dictionary say that 500 is not an oligarchy and 250 is? 

I don't see any of that:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oligarchy

Those who are not now in DT could say the same, that the 500 in DT2 plus those in DT1 are an oligarchy.

Remove the trust feature altogether and start a true freedom world 

Since you're restraining access to DT2 this way, yeah it turns into an oligarchy by definition since it will be a smaller number of members with deciding power, and don't argue with me argue with the dictionary  
Lucius is perfectly right, if the system changes right now, will we have some democratic vote or it will be just because the most influential and the loudest voices will impose their opinion? And if after 6 months this side loses its members and the other is growing louder and bigger do we reshuffle it again?

Abolish the damn thing altogether, bring bag the scammer tag and let's be done with it!
Oh, wait, who will decide on the tag...shit!  

This debate is getting strong now but I don't see any reply of theymos on this discussion on any of these threads. This is the most sensitive matter and I hope he will tell his point of view on this matter. No matter how many proposals we have, if theymos is not interested nothing is going to change.

Hey Lucius, I hope you realize that this is a fallacy. There are parts of the forum in which to talk about Bitcoin, and other parts that are not for talking about Bitcoin, such as Meta, Reputation, and others. Talking about the trust system does not preclude talking about Bitcoin in other parts.


Another fallacy. That is not the only alternative. Starting with 2 inclusions minimum, and 1 net to get into DT2 seems like some sort of oligarchy to you?


I understand you would make that change for DT2 but the rest you would leave the same?

That's not how it works, DT1-members are above DT2.

This is how the number of required DT1-inclusions influences the number of users on DT2:

---

---

I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective. It may be better to remove DefaultTrust and leave your custom list.

If only 1 DT1 inclusion is needed for DT1 to get to DT2, it is not bad at all, I am okay with that, some members will be okay with that too, but if the community support a minimum of 2 DT1 inclusions, it may also not be bad too, but just that it will be harder for people that are in DT1 to get to DT2. DT2 may become more centralized. What I think is that DT system can not be totally accurate, it will be faulty to an extent, but the good side of the one we are using now is much more than the bad side, like 80% or more good side.

Theymos can try and make a poll about this, but I do not think it is necessary. I do not want more power to be among some people that can make DT2 more centralized. Some people want this just because they are unable to manipulate the DT2, I do not know but that is what I am thinking, which makes me like this current DT system. I am not supporting this proposal.

This present DT system is good.

When you get a red tag by DT members, it literally mean your account already destroyed since many users will think you're a scammer, bad person, etc etc that would make you not cool in this forum. It's very important even though you're not participating a signature campaign, but it will damage your reputation and if you have a services, anyone will think twice before hiring you.

Of course a negative feedback wouldn't stop anyone to contribute in this forum, but it's very important for the other things that need a reputation score.

This should be a forum where Bitcoin is discussed, not where personal wars are waged the way people play with something called the DT system. The system we have now is quite satisfactory, but some individuals think that it is not good enough for them, or rather, they do not have enough influence to manipulate it.

A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.

I don't think that DT1 trust feedback really matters. I mean, it does indeed mark your account in red and it looks bad, I guess, but so what ?

Personally, I don't really care about the rank or status of the person who gave someone a red tag, but rather the comment given and the reference link are far more important to look at, and if someone is going to make a trade with another forum member, simply looking at their green to red ratio on their profile is not a good indicator of that person's legitimacy.

For DT2, net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 inclusions seems like it would be an improvement to start with. DT1 is more complicated, I guess it is difficult and no one has a 100% clear idea.

Am just thinking how important is this? I understand it will reduce significant number of DT2 users and their feedback wouldn't appeared on trusted feedback. But what I mean is, which those DT2 users are leaving a wrong feedback that theymos need to adjust the current DT system with this one? AFAIK I don't see that problem.

It's a good proposal, but currently we're not really need it. The same happen like the problem of self scratching it's still not a big issue.

About 27 users joined that poll, which is a low number to generalize the opinion of the community.
But, I would expect majority of the community to be in agreement with a net inclusion of 1 and minimum of 2 inclusions. This would help curb users getting placed into DT2 by increasing the entry barrier.
Maybe theymos organizes a more publicized poll to reach a decision.

Some honest users might be affected by such a cut, but if their judgement can be trusted by one DT1 users, then they can always be trusted by another overtime, as long as they are active in the trust system.

Higher than the above suggestion may make it too steep for new users to get included.

It is not my idea, it is an idea that circulates quite a lot in the Reputation section, to the point that some DT members have cleared their trust list, and others say they are thinking about it.

DireWolfM14's thread is indicative of the community's thoughts on the subject of requirements for DT2, resulting in the most popular of the choices: Net of 1, but with a minimum of 2 DT1 Inclusions.

I don't know if even now that will seem too little.

I open the thread to comment on the issue and hope that theymos ends up taking some action or at least saying something in the thread about what he thinks.