LoyceV also asked an interesting question along the lines of whether it's intended that DT1 excluded members can still make inclusions/exclusions to other DT1 members, if they are ultimately distrusted by "acting" DT1 members (cant' find quote though).

Lauda had (2) net-inclusions on DT1.
Lauda now has 6 net-inclusions on DT2.
Lauda got blacklisted from DT1.

I have 2 scenarios
1: suppose Lauda wasn't blacklisted, but got 3 more exclusions from other DT1 members. That would mean Lauda was removed from DefaultTrust entirely.

2: the current state (Lauda blacklisted from DT1). Now suppose Lauda gets the same 3 exclusions from DT1. That would mean Lauda still has 3 net-inclusions on DT2 and remains on DefaultTrust.

This means it is possible that a DT1-exclusion leads to a member being on DT which wouldn't happen without blacklisting. This is probably caused by the fact that excluded DT1-members can vote against other DT1-members, but they can't vote against DT2-members.
Is that the intended behaviour of the DefaultTrust system?

I think this is becoming a joke. There's one shithead with -15 still wreaking havoc in DT1, extorting other members with exclusions/inclusions. I think the idea was that such a person would ultimately stop being eligible for DT1 due to not having 10+ inclusions from merit-earning users but that's clearly not happening and with more and more merit being spread around there will be more merited idiots including other idiots.

Perhaps exclusions should count against DT1 eligibility (e.g. if you're excluded by 2 users with 250+ merit, then that negates 2 inclusions from users with 250+ merit) but that probably would open other avenues for abuse.