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?
The counter argument is what use is trusting the judgement of that person if that person never/very rarely exercises that judgement to leave trust ratings (positive or negative).
Just playing devil's advocate.
"Never" is a long time. "Rarely" is enough if that person tags even one scammer (or a trustworthy person) in 100 years. My point - it's not like that DT2 member is taking the DT2 spot away from some superior scam buster. The number of DT2 positions is not limited so the DT1 member trusting the judgement of someone who rarely sends feedback does not cost anybody anything or deprive anybody of anything.
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
Correlation does not imply causation. Don't be Quicksy.
I doubt that DT1 members are concerned about green trust to begin with, not to mention that there are too many ways for them to run a con without drawing attention to it with something as simple as padding their trust rating.
If you really want to uncover abuse you need to dig deeper and you also need to be able to accept the outcome even if it doesn't match your preconceived notions. I'm starting to doubt that you're up to the task.