You seem to be implying that the only criteria for being in DT2 is the number of negatives sent. I think that's wrong.
No. I'm not implying that. But of course that's a factor, among several others
If a user barely leaves any feedback at all then I do not understand why he was considered to DT2 in the first place
The DT1 member trusts the judgment of that person. What's wrong with that?
You're really starting to go off the rails with this one. What difference does the number of feedback ratings make? Is there a quota that a DT2 member is supposed to meet? Does the DT2 spot cost money to the forum?
What does quota have to do with anything?... It seems we're misunderstanding each other
The issue here is that it seems a few DT1 users abused the system and added several users to DT2 only because they left positive trust to them
I'm just trying to understand why DT1 users really added the users they added. They should be added because the trust they leave is helpful to the community
I'll illustrate this with the most extreme example I've found: nonnakip. He left trust only to OgNasty. So, why was he added to DT2?
If I fail to find any explanation for this then I conclude the reason is exactly that: he left positive trust to the DT1 member who added him