Add more restrictions/rules to DT2 list - suggestion.

[mikeywith]

I just saw @Loyce's updated DT list ,and that is quite a long and concerning list , there are some newbies in the list and some members who have been inactive for years, this is terrible to say the least.

I randomly checked a few accounts, this account was last active on "January 02, 2018"  , he sent a tremendous number of positive feedback ,  some of this feedback are now very inaccurate , this user for an instance turned out to be a scammer while the positive remains.

I am worried about the positive feedback left, there are over 370 members on DT2 now, this means probably hundreds of feedback are either misleading or not accurate anymore, when the bull run hits, and the forum starts to attract different types of traders on the market place  , scam will increase, and now that we have thousands of accounts with positive feedback, things could get really bad as almost every newbie and their grandmother trusts members with positive feedback from DT.


This is just one example i found randomly in a 2 minutes, i am sure there are many other worse examples , IMO DT2 list needs to have more rules that are similar to DT1 list, the most import one is the last date of activity.

[Steamtyme]

It's a good catch I was going through some of them before things got busy here. The best thing to do right now is use the ~ for exclusions. It's the only tool we have at the moment, I suggest the users themselves and then the people who have them in their trust list; as this shows poor trust list management.

I know we are still in the experimental and tweaking phases, but for now the exclusions are the way to shape the system as it was intended. Going forward there may be a reduction in the number of DT1 members which should help cut down the number of DT2 as well. When/If that happens the exclusions and "cleaning" of lists will help strengthen the system moving forward. I'll be spending time tonight going through some of it, I've been trying to focus on my personal list and what it shows me more recently, as opposed to the overall DT list.

[o_e_l_e_o]

- If rank was determined solely using earned merit, then you must be of at least Member rank.
 - You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
 - You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.

I think it would be perfectly logical to apply these three criteria from the DT1 selection process to DT2 members as well, with some slight tweaks. As the DT2 list is updated in real time rather than once a month, a limit of 3 days is too short to start kicking people off. Perhaps online within the last 30 days and posted within the last 90 days would be better?

I do think, in general though, DT1 users need to be paying closer attention to who they are including on their trust lists. There have been times in the last few months with known scammers cropping up on DT2, or users whose only feedback left is a positive to the only DT1 member who is including them on DT2.

[The Cryptovator]

I am agree with OP, there should be apply minimum criteria in order to add on DT2. Current DT2 list is too long and unfortunately there is few person who isn't appropriate for DT2 network. Exclusion isn't permanent solution in my opinion. If there is criteria to become DT1 then why there is no criteria for DT2?

However every DT1 should recheck their trust list. Still few users are confuse about trust and feedback's.

[LoyceV]

I randomly checked a few accounts

That's exactly the reason for making this list. I think the majority of users are good, but I also see many users who earned 0 Merit. Update: 95 DT2-users haven't earned any Merit! See around #170 on the DT2 list (or this link) for instance: many users without any Merit who left Dabs positive feedback, are included by Dabs.
I know Dabs is Staff and trusted by Theymos, but it looks like he included users on his Trust list instead of leaving them feedback.

I've been planning another thread for a while (but created 2 threads already just today), it's going to be called Trust Selfscratchers: a list of users who included users who left them positive feedback. I expect this to be very useful in finding abuse.
Update: see Trust Selfscratchers: who scratched his own back the most?.

I would vote for (at least) a minimum Merit requirement for being on DT1/2, that would instantly remove at least 95 users from DT2.

[The Sceptical Chymist]

The best thing to do right now is use the ~ for exclusions.

That was my first thought.  I'm not sure Theymos needs to roll out any new rules about DT behavior/inclusions/whatever.  When a DT2 member is discovered to have some questionable feedbacks left or they're otherwise not worthy to be on the list, that's something DT1 members can take care of themselves--and it's happened before already. 

As the number of members in all levels of DT combined increases, there are going to be some that don't belong on the list.  I just don't think we need more rules when the community can take care of the problem itself.

[mikeywith]

that's something DT1 members can take care of themselves--and it's happened before already.  

That was possible then, maybe possible now, but the number is increasing and it will be very difficult to monitor, the problem is only DT1 exclusions matter.

I see nothing wrong with adding more rules, unless someone can point out the cons.

As for the time being, all we have to work with is manual exclusions based on whatever @loycev provides.

@loycev i think merit should be the last thing to consider, i am sure there are many trusted members who have done a good amount of trades and have a good feedback list but have not earned a single merit, active members in the market place do not tend to earn any merit.
 

[LFC_Bitcoin]

DT2 qualification only possible with 3 DT1+ Members trusting you.

Only a suggestion!

[TMAN]

DT2 qualification only possible with 3 DT1+ Members trusting you.

Only a suggestion!

YES - Same with DT1 as well..

[Jet Cash]

I don't think merit has anything to do with trust. A guy with poor English may not earn any merit, but that doesn't mean he is dishonest, or can't be trusted. A smooth talking poster may have loads of merit, but could turn out to be as honest as Theresa May. As always, if you are trading with somebody, do your own checks first, and form your own opinion.

[LoyceV]

DT2 qualification only possible with 3 DT1+ Members trusting you.

There are currently 378 users on DT2:
inclusions: users
1: 229
2: 63
3: 23
4: 12
5: 6
6: 5
7: 5
8: 2
10: 1
11: 3
12: 1
13: 1
16: 1
18: 1
19: 1
23: 1
24: 1
29: 1

Requiring 3 DT1 inclusions to be on DT2 would limit DT2 to this:
KWH (3)
Mr. Big (3)
sirius (3)
nanotube (3)
Pieter Wuille (3)
fluffypony (3)
tysat (3)
yxt (3)
grue (3)
Otoh (3)
HagssFIN (3)
condoras (3)
PsychoticBoy (3)
AdolfinWolf (3)
DiamondCardz (3)
dozerz (3)
ChiBitCTy (3)
Corrosive (3)
miffman (3)
Patatas (3)
comit (3)
TryNinja (3)
F2b (3)
Maged (4)
squall1066 (4)
bithalo (4)
casascius (4)
Spazzer (4)
Kialara (4)
digicoinuser (4)
sandy-is-fine (4)
mikeywith (4)
Flying Hellfish (4)
xhomerx10 (4)
Slow death (4)
Gunthar (5)
SFR10 (5)
bavicrypto (5)
smoothie (5)
RHavar (5)
dolphriends (5)
MadZ (6)
Stunna (6)
wttbs (6)
monbux (6)
DireWolfM14 (6)
-ck (7)
John (John K.) (7)
DannyHamilton (7)
NLNico (7)
BG4 (7)
xandry (8)
minifrij (8)
TookDk (10)
BadBear (11)
wheelz1200 (11)
hilariousetc (11)
Lutpin (12)
ibminer (13)
chronicsky (16)
SaltySpitoon (18)
Zepher (19)
dooglus (23)
marlboroza (24)
Blazed (29)

I think requiring 2 inclusions to be on DT2 would be enough.

[DireWolfM14]

I think some more restrictions on DT1 status might be in order also.  Something happened this morning which sent me stumbling onto these three DT1 members.  A lot of their DT votes have come from member with negative trust who are attempting to kick Lauda off of the DT1 list.

MaoChao: Trust List
WhiteManWhite: Trust List
TheFuzzStone: Trust List

[LoyceV]

I think some more restrictions on DT1 status might be in order also.  Something happened this morning which sent me stumbling onto these three DT1 members.  A lot of their DT votes have come from member with negative trust who are attempting to kick Lauda off of the DT1 list.

This looks just fine to me: they have some inclusions, some exclusions, and what results from the voting is that they're on DT1.

The users with red trust don't have a deciding vote, and many of them have been blacklisted.
Red trust isn't moderated and votes still count, but theymos can blacklist them from voting if they are alt-accounts controlled by the same person.