Taken from
trust changes announcement, January 2019:
As a special exception to the normal algorithm for determining a user's trust network, if you are on the default trust list ("DT1") but more other DT1 members distrust you than explicitly trust you, then it is as if you are distrusted by the default trust list for all purposes except for this very DT1-composition determination.
So if someone on DT1 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT1 members to distrust them.
Therefore the following suggestion is to make DT2 as accountable as DT1 using the same algorithm with the same reasoning:
- If you are on the second default trust list ("DT2") but more other DT2 members distrust you than explicitly trust you, then it is as if you are distrusted by the default trust list.
- So if someone on DT2 is doing something stupid, you can ask other DT2 members to distrust them.
Apologies if this has already been referenced elsewhere, or is already the case.
Edit, suggested reqreuiments for DT2 exclusion:- Must be distrusted more than trusted by DT2 members
- Must have distrust greater than 2 DT2 members
- Distrusting DT2 members must be trusted by different DT1 members(*)
(*) This would resolve the sockpuppet problem