I don't think making a lot of "good" posts should give someone the right to have influence on the trust system via who is on their trust lists.
Agreed. But I don't think the Merit requirement is meant to
include users in DT, it's meant
exclude users (such as spammers). Making good posts doesn't mean someone should be on DT, but making bad posts sure as hell means he shouldn't!
The above is still possible under the new system, however I suspect in many cases the response will be he meets the criteria and there is no manipulation to meet the criteria, so he will stay. Once someone "meets the criteria" it will be difficult to get this to not be the case, as those on DT1 tend to receive additional trust inclusions over time, and over time, people will become inactive, and as such will not respond to (or see) requests to remove controversial people from their trust lists.
Inactive users won't stay on DT1:
- You must have been online sometime within the last 3 days.
- You must have posted sometime within the last 30 days.
I too have some concerns, theymos responded to one of them saying this:
~
But for now I am very much inclined to just let it roll for a while and see exactly where the cracks appear.
(I've removed the context from the quote, I don't want to give people any ideas)
the new DT1 contains much overlap and many "communities" are unrepresented
Roughly a third of new DT1 members are in the same "clique" / "trading circle" and another 15% closely associate with this group.
That's now. I can imagine other communities will make their own DT1 "clique": for example a group of Russians, a group of Indonesians and a group of bounty hunters. As long as they stay out of each other's hair, they can co-exist. The moment they touch, it feels like a black hole collision competing for exclusions.
The old DT-system felt like it meant something, the new system changes every few hours.