Already posted my general opinion in that topic:
someone's feedback doesn't become useless if they leave, it's still just as useful even if it won't be updated and therefore can become outdated.
This topic is inspired from the discussion happening on the other thread.. My understanding in general is when a user is not active for long time, not participating in the default trust system; we can consider not to vote for them [avoid both inclusion and exclusion]. Some possible plots can be as follows to understand the matter a little clear. I also think from a good discussion we may have even better understanding for the current feedback and default trust system.
I don't see including absent/left members in trust list as "voting" for them personally. This concept is reserved for reaching the threshold of inclusions to become eligible for DT1, or otherwise in relation to DT1 members voting directly. If they are no longer active, they aren't eligible for DT1, so it's therefore simply based on whether their feedback is trusted by default or not.
Additionally when including inactive members this doesn't ever extend to their list of inclusions, in the way that it would be DT1 members producing votes for DT2 members, as inactive members can only be DT2 at most. So in this sense it's very much a "limited vote", one that is solely based on trusting their feedback, as their only personal inclusions and exclusions, or lack of, become irrelevant.
Satoshi came first in mind. The current default trust system is totally irrelevant for the account. [1.] The are no feedback given by him to anyone, [2.] He does not have anyone to perform a DT voting. The account is a great history but is not useful in DT system due to the inactivity.
This is just an example or poor judgement from those who include a member who hasn't left any feedback.
PS - Didn't you include my mobile account to your trust that hasn't left any feedback?? ...TMAN: [1.] Left many feedback [2.] Performed DT voting [3.] But not active anymore. It has been over three years now. Three years ago the forum environment and current environment is totally different. It changed a lot. A feedback left by him three years ago can be very inappropriate today. A good example is the feedback left for Best_Change.
This is an example of how feedback can become outdated, and if so, then sure the user can be removed from DT. But not based on his activity, simply the accuracy of feedback, regardless of who the member is.
There are other users who are [1.] Active but not performing in DT voting however since they are active and somehow or greatly involved in trades or forum events having them in inclusion or exclusion is relevant.
This I don't understand. Either their feedback is trusted or not to enter your inclusion list. Whether they have an trust list or not doesn't change the accuracy or that feedback either.
From the above scenarios understandably we can conclude that when a user is not active for long time, any feedback it left or received carry no weights or very less weights. After many years, the time has changed, a lot of things of the forum has changed; an old-inactive account is outdated to be in the trust or distrust setting.
I guess you are trying to say old, maybe even outdated feedback carries no weight? If that's the case, then by this logic it's not that damaging to remain then? Personally I think for example a red tag is a red tag, whether it's from the past year or from many years ago. Sure someone reading it might give it more or less weight based on it's age, but otherwise whether the user remains active or not becomes less relevant imo.
Personally I think what you are suggesting is an over complication of the trust system. You simply add users with accurate feedback, dead or alive. That's it.
If you trust the judgement of a user less because they have left or died, then don't include them in your trust list.
