I think it should be Net 1 but with 2 inclusions minimum (i.e. like the current formula but bumped up by 1).
I like it, this makes even more sense than requiring 2 inclusions.
I'd like to see 5 inclusions or more personally.
Most of the members with 5 inclusions on DT2 have been on DT1 at some time. Asking for 5 DT1 inclusions makes DT2 harder to reach than DT1, so DT2 will be mostly limited to members who lost the monthly DT1-election.
And there are not 2723 users in DT2.
That's how exclusions work.
But not exclusions that include a member in DT2.
I only added the negatives to show how many users are excluded. But it doesn't really mean anything for DT2. Most (
2443) of the 2723 users with DT1 strength (-1) are excluded by a single DT1-member.
That's not right. It turns out the data I posted on "DT2" in this topic includes DT1-members. I overlooked that last night. The 614 DT2-members you mentioned from my other topic don't double count DT1-members.