How are DT 1 members selected.

[LoyceV]

The only thing I would make more stringent is the criteria for being on DT2; I think it should require being included by at least 2 DT1 members.

Years ago, I did the math: that would roughly cut the number of DT2-members in half, and remove many DT2-users who (in my opinion) have no business being on DT.

[DireWolfM14]

The only thing I would make more stringent is the criteria for being on DT2; I think it should require being included by at least 2 DT1 members.

Years ago, I did the math: that would roughly cut the number of DT2-members in half, and remove many DT2-users who (in my opinion) have no business being on DT.

290 some-odd DT2 members only being there because one DT1 member decided to include someone who left him a greenie is way too many.  It's basically abusing the system, and shouldn't be allowed.

[hugeblack]

The only thing I would make more stringent is the criteria for being on DT2; I think it should require being included by at least 2 DT1 members.

Years ago, I did the math: that would roughly cut the number of DT2-members in half, and remove many DT2-users who (in my opinion) have no business being on DT.

The problem is that even though there are many DT members, only a few actually take actions (I don't have precise data about that  ).
But since there are no better suggestions, this is better than the old DT system.

[nutildah]

The only thing I would make more stringent is the criteria for being on DT2; I think it should require being included by at least 2 DT1 members.

Years ago, I did the math: that would roughly cut the number of DT2-members in half, and remove many DT2-users who (in my opinion) have no business being on DT.

This sounds like a good idea. It would weed out about 90% of the accounts that are on DT2 for self-scratching purposes.

The biggest F.U. I see to the trust system right now are the (handful) of DT1 accounts that will include anyone in their list so long as they received a positive feedback from them.

[SuperBitMan]

The only thing I would make more stringent is the criteria for being on DT2; I think it should require being included by at least 2 DT1 members.

Years ago, I did the math: that would roughly cut the number of DT2-members in half, and remove many DT2-users who (in my opinion) have no business being on DT.

It’s a good one if it is being executed, a lot of DT 2 members should not be a DT member because they are really not doing anything useful as a DT member, they don’t even visit and contribute to scam accusation thread and they really don’t care about keeping the forum clean, such persons should be removed from DT.

LoyceV I will love to ask you this question, is it right for a DT member to give a member a negative feedback just because he or she suspects the member of doing something wrong, without good or solid evidence.

[LoyceV]

LoyceV I will love to ask you this question, is it right for a DT member to give a member a negative feedback just because he or she suspects the member of doing something wrong, without good or solid evidence.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. This really depends on the specific situation.

[SuperBitMan]

LoyceV I will love to ask you this question, is it right for a DT member to give a member a negative feedback just because he or she suspects the member of doing something wrong, without good or solid evidence.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. This really depends on the specific situation.

Ok, but shouldn’t someone be innocent of any allegations until proven guilty.
I think we need to take a good stand on this, it will help eliminate abuse of the trust system, if someone is accused of an offense or is suspected to have done something wrong, no matter the situation he or she should not be given negative feedback until evidence of his wrong doing or crime is provided.
If we don’t have a law or rule that forbid DT members from giving negative feedback without evidence then why do we complain when a DT member is abusing the trust system, so I think their should be a rule against giving negative feedback without evidence. what do you think.

[LoyceV]

Ok, but shouldn’t someone be innocent of any allegations until proven guilty.

Feel free to check my Sent feedback, and if I gave negative feedback to anyone who's innocent in your opinion, you can bring it up. If you want to have fun: do Lauda!

I think we need to take a good stand on this

Great! That's the spirit! I recommend to read my Beginners guide to correct use of the Trust system and create your own Trust list so you too can take a stance against users who leave incorrect feedback.

it will help eliminate abuse of the trust system, if someone is accused of an offense or is suspected to have done something wrong, no matter the situation he or she should not be given negative feedback until evidence of his wrong doing or crime is provided.

I've brought up some cases of Trust abuse over the years, and by using valid arguments that lead to users being excluded from DT. But I don't really see the point of asking hypothetical questions about it. If someone is abusing the feedback system, post about it on the Reputation board.

I think their should be a rule against giving negative feedback without evidence. what do you think.

See:

Q: Why isn't trust moderated?
A: Feedback isn't moderated (except for obvious cases such as pure advertising, hundreds of identical empty/gibberish reports on one user) for the same reason as scams - too much room for abuse.

[dragonvslinux]

The only thing I would make more stringent is the criteria for being on DT2; I think it should require being included by at least 2 DT1 members.

Years ago, I did the math: that would roughly cut the number of DT2-members in half, and remove many DT2-users who (in my opinion) have no business being on DT.

This partially paints the picture from Sept 2023; it's DT1 & DT2 combined so there is upto 100 extra users included which shouldn't be, but you can see the divide between >0 and >1 either way.



I'm assuming not much has changed, last DT update was 581 + 95 = 676, this is the same as the high of 2022/2023 when DT had started rounding off (after increasing from ~400 to ~650).