as someone who is a DT and their feedback appears by default to every member there has to be a set of rules, if the DT is not happy with the rule and wan't to use the trust system the way they want then they get removed from DT and can still tag people for saying "apple" if they want.
I'm still not following the logic here, sorry. There are already tools in place to remove people from DT. You can use those to remove specific members if you think they shouldn't be there.
Or if the existing tools are not good enough you can suggest improvements to theymos, who's already
considering changes to how DT works.
Either or both of the above make much more sense to me than trying to force everyone into compliance with rigid rules, which would essentially create another hierarchy (mods able to override DT) and lots of new complaints. I mean I would be in favor of it if we could just add a rule "scams are not allowed" and have a feasible way to enforce it with zero-tolerance but we can't and we don't.
even if we are never going to have any rules, i hope that the reasonable DT members will stand against those irrational tags when they see them. like that DT member who stood up for cryptohunter when he was given a red tag for being a "troll" and gave cryptohunter a positive one because he thought that being a troll does not qualify you for a negative trust of which i am sure that 99% of members would agree to that . i am by no means defending the "way" that cryptohunter went about the "gang" and all the exaggerations ,but it was sad to see only a few DTs disagreed to that and actually only 1 took an action while a few others supported that irrational feedback.
That's already happening and only 1 counter rating is needed (multiple would make the target have "+" trust, which is probably not a good thing). I don't recall any recent incident where a reasonable counter rating was not posted but if you have any examples please bring them up.