Quote from: LoyceV on Today at 06:18:45 PM

Quote from: fillippone on Today at 06:11:26 PM

If you discover some coordination effort, I don't know what to say. I am unsure if it is against the rules, but I will look into the evidence.

I don't think coordinating or even campaigning for Trust inclusions (or exclusions) is a problem. From the OP:

Quote from: theymos on January 09, 2019, 06:03:26 PM

In borderline cases, it should result in something of a political battle.

It would be nice though if they follow the basics, and List the users who you trust to have good trust ratings and good trust lists.

Quote from: fillippone on Today at 06:11:26 PM

If those accounts are alts of a game person, there would probably be some merit cycling between them that is at least frowned upon, and of course, I would be happy to discover such a situation.

If sockpuppet accounts help push someone onto DT1, theymos theymos will blacklist them from DT1-selection if found out.

Quote

Otherwise, I must only be happy there is more variety in DT1: I think this was one of the targets of this procedure, wasn't it?

It's kinda useless to have DT1-users who never sent any feedback.

In the message linked in my monthly review of DT1 reshuffles, there is a translation (by yours truly)of your Guide on how to use the Trust System properly.
So, I agree with everything you said, and above all, DT inclusion should be based on the trust of a particular user.
Yet, Feedback metrics are not included in the criteria for DT inclusion.
Maybe theymos will be inspired by this and amend the rules.
Until then, I haven't much to say, and if a political battle will emerge, I am not sure I will be too interested in taking sides.
Of course, if something filthy emerges, I will be very interested.