This should be a forum where Bitcoin is discussed, not where personal wars are waged the way people play with something called the DT system. The system we have now is quite satisfactory, but some individuals think that it is not good enough for them, or rather, they do not have enough influence to manipulate it.
Hey Lucius, I hope you realize that this is a fallacy. There are parts of the forum in which to talk about Bitcoin, and other parts that are not for talking about Bitcoin, such as Meta, Reputation, and others. Talking about the trust system does not preclude talking about Bitcoin in other parts.
A system in which the most influential would elect themselves and set the rules would obviously be tailored to those who are currently the loudest.
Another fallacy. That is not the only alternative. Starting with 2 inclusions minimum, and 1 net to get into DT2 seems like some sort of oligarchy to you?
I'd say the minimum should be DT2 strength (2). That removes about half the users, and makes it less of a "burden" to include someone.
I still think "protesting" against DefaultTrust by emptying your Trust list is counter-effective. It may be better to remove DefaultTrust and leave your custom list.
I understand you would make that change for DT2 but the rest you would leave the same?