1) Currently, I have a total of 513 earned merits (I guess earned since 1/24/18), so does that mean that I can cast 51 regular votes and 2 super votes ? (assuming that each additional vote is earned after the threshold of 10 and 250)?
2) You seem to assert that I can only cast those votes by making a custom portion of the trust list (perhaps keeping default trust in there, too?)?
3) So far, in the past, few hours, I have only made a custom list that includes 11 members, but if I continue to add to my custom trust list, then each of them will count as a vote until I reach 51 members?
4) If I make a custom list that includes more than 51 members, then only the first 51 would be counted as votes, or how does that work?
5) How about the 2 supervotes? How do I label or distinguish the supervotes, if I am understanding this correctly from theymos mentioning the number of votes that each member gets?
6) Can I change my votes with the passage of time at any time that I want? Presumably my earned merits will continue to increase and allow me to add more votes with the passage of time? (I assume that some of the vote criteria might change with the passage of time, too, but that seems to be another set of questions for another day).
1) Correct.2) You seem to assert that I can only cast those votes by making a custom portion of the trust list (perhaps keeping default trust in there, too?)?
3) So far, in the past, few hours, I have only made a custom list that includes 11 members, but if I continue to add to my custom trust list, then each of them will count as a vote until I reach 51 members?
4) If I make a custom list that includes more than 51 members, then only the first 51 would be counted as votes, or how does that work?
5) How about the 2 supervotes? How do I label or distinguish the supervotes, if I am understanding this correctly from theymos mentioning the number of votes that each member gets?
6) Can I change my votes with the passage of time at any time that I want? Presumably my earned merits will continue to increase and allow me to add more votes with the passage of time? (I assume that some of the vote criteria might change with the passage of time, too, but that seems to be another set of questions for another day).
2) Correct
3) Correct
4) No. You can't order them:
~the system tries to distribute the votes such that the greatest number of people would be included in DT1 at the end. If there's still contention (or if my algorithm behaves sub-optimally), then it's chosen randomly among the remaining options. But this is a bit rare: if DT1 was constructed now, no randomness would be involved, since all contention would be resolvable without it.
5) I guess it's the same as 4).6) Changes to your own trust list are applied instantly. Changes to DT1 happen once per month (and theymos can change this frequency).
A user needs more exclusions than inclusions to be excluded.
Dammit, you're right. Now I need to have a third example list to make it work. 
Shame on you!
Can you still update it though, considering how many people don't understand the details already.Thanks Loyce.
Your responses seems to show that largely, I am thinking in the right direction, even though I still feel a bit uncomfortable with my understanding.
Seems that if I have only put 11 members on my trust list, then my 51 votes would get divided evenly amongst those 11 members. 4.636 votes per member (51/11) (something like that), and the two supervotes might either get assigned in whole based on fraction, such as .1818 per member or randomly assigned, which would then only go to two members (randomly). Actually it seems best if theymos were to create a fractionalized assignment of votes rather than random assignment of whole votes (whether the algorithm can be programed in such a way would be for him to disclose).
As I am thinking about this and typing, it seems that out of fairness, supervotes could be fractionally assigned, as well (perhaps once the 250 threshold is achieved), so maybe instead of having 2 supervotes, I would have 2.052 supervotes based on my 513/250), and those 2.052 supervotes would just be distributed among my 11 members (which would be .1865 supervotes per member = 2.052/11). I understand that traditionally DT had been dealing with whole numbers because of the inclusion or exclusion based on whole numbers, but I don't see why such inclusion/exclusion could still not be placed in the algorithm with thresholds established too regarding if inclusions outnumber the exclusions then would be on the list (could round up or down to whole numbers in order to keep it less confusing).