Quote from: o_e_l_e_o on October 22, 2019, 12:18:06 PM

Let's say you are included by 3 DT1 members and 5 DT2 members, but you are also excluded by 10 DT2 members. At DT1 you have +3 and so are included. But at DT2 you would have -5 and so would be excluded. Overall between DT1 and DT2 you have -2, so although you are net included by DT1 (+3), are DT2 now able to overrule DT1?

Technically it would be DT2 overuling DT2, DT2 would still not have any influence over DT1 in the direct ruling sense.
I otherwise do agree that if you are overall distrusted by DT1 & DT2, you shouldn't be either.

Quote from: LoyceV on October 22, 2019, 03:00:39 PM

I don't think this is ever going to happen. The entire basis of the DefaultTrust system is that each depth is chosen by a higher depth.

With this proposal, DT2 depth would still be chosen by DT1. The difference here would be DT2 members ability to exclude their own. I am not suggesting to change the selection process directly, but the exclusion process, even if they are interlinked. Similar to how Theymos overules DT1, but ultimately DT1 have the ability to exclude their own. The proposal is a trickle down theory of the current DT1 selection and exclusion process, allowing certain power to continue to roll down hill: that of exclusion.

Quote from: LoyceV on October 22, 2019, 03:00:39 PM

Do you have a particular user in mind for this suggestion? And if so, have you checked how your suggestion would influence the DT-status for that user?

Nope nobody in mind, but you're right to check how it would influence DT2 members. Admittedly the original theory would be completely flawed, as I'd overlooked that many DT2 members aren't trusted by other DT2 members, therefore a single DT2 member would be able to kick out another which would be no good.

At minimum a DT2 exclusion algorithm would need to be something like distrusted>trusted with distrusted>2 or higher. So it would require a minimum of two DT2 members (or more) to exclude another, as opposed to a single member. From the sample of 200 of 463 DT2 members this wouldn't exclude anyone I can see, putting 0/no scored users closest to exclusion (by default) than any others. This was mainly what I was thinking of, another form of horizontal accountability that wouldn't immediately change anyone's trust depth, but would instead help to solve the possibility of DT1 using sockpuppets to exclude DT2 members, or the theoretical problem of DT1 including DT2 sockpuppets, that I hadn't even considered properly. Hence why the factor of 2 members required for inclusion/exclusion generally makes sense, in order to increase trust accountability.

I can otherwise see why you came to the following conclusion:

Quote from: LoyceV on September 05, 2019, 06:36:39 AM

I've posted a few suggestions before, it won't fix everything, but I think it would make DT better if:
1. Each DT2-member needs at least 2 inclusions from DT1 (this would cut the number of DT2-members in half and make "Selfscratching" impossible without collusion)
2. Each DT2-member must have been active and posting in the past 6 months (this gets rid of abandoned accounts on DT2)
3. Getting banned should instantly remove a user from DT1/2, and their DT1-voting-power should be removed.

Although somewhat unrelated as I was discussing exclusion of DT2 as opposed to the process of inclusion of DT2...
The main suggestion I would have is if you wanted to cut the size of DT2 without doing so as drastically:

Quote from: not intentional plagiarism

1.Each DT2-member needs at least 2 inclusions from DT1 or a combination of DT1 and DT2.