Are you trying to imply I advised DT1 members to include untrusted people, scammers or users with red trust to their trust list? Read everything I posted, including this

Exactly. And just being trusted enough to hold x amount of money doesn't necessarily mean the trust they send can be trusted or is helpful, unbiased, with good references
Leaving good, helpful feedback and being trusted enough to hold money are different things. Some users can have both qualities, others none. But it's completely possible to have only one

Maybe theymos didn't send any guideline to you but he did send at least a very short one to Blazed and, hopefully, other DT1 members. His instance is very clear:

If you mean that as the only parameter to add someone to DT2 then that would be the worst idea! But that could be a good start as long as you check feedback left by every of those users to see if that trust helps the community and is left with proper arguments, references and without abuse. Or you can check the Marketplace and find users who leave trust there. Those seem better ways to start than those you've dealt with or have exchanged trust with. Of course those are just ways to start, proper checking of their left trust is required

Good suggestion. I've updated OP

Being on DT2 shouldn't mean that user can be trusted with money. It should mean their feedback can be trusted. It should mean the trust they leave helps others see who can be trusted with money.
Those added to DT2 should help the forum by leaving accurate and helpful trust, not just by making good deals
Of course you won't add a scammer to DT2 under any circumstances as he will abuse his power but just being trusted to hold money is not reason enough. Just leave positive trust in that case

Don't take this as an attack. You seem to forget I said this after you actively began to re-check your list:
I have updated the title of OP so hopefully you and other DT1 members don't take it as a personal attack

Sure, random  Coincidentally that metric tells the exact change each one made to their own trust by setting their own list. The difference shown there is the exact effect each DT1 had on their own trust by being DT1 and adding others to DT2. But I was just lucky because the metric was chosen at random

Absolutely, as I've said before. As long as the reason to add those users to DT2 is because the trust they left helps the community, not just because you've dealt with them or even because they can be trusted with money (in that case leave positive trust to them, don't add them to DT2)

You really should stop taking someone's word for it without a proper explanation. He hasn't explained why he added nonnakip in the first place, or anyone else for that matter
They clearly do not help the community. Maybe they don't hurt it either but the fact none (or almost none) of them helps the community rises the question why they were included then

He removed nonnakip because it was too obvious his addition was wrong but it was always wrong, even the day he added him, so why did he add him?
This wouldn't matter if there were only a few cases but that appears to be the norm. So explanations are still required, or at least openness to feedback and improvement

I can't PM him, he doesn't receive PMs from newbies. Would you?


Please don't lie, don't insult me, and don't insult my and others intelligence

Do you really still don't understand the issue? DT1 users should add more users to DT2 but they should do that to help the community. They must choose users whose ratings are valid and help others. It must not be based mainly on private trades with them (making a successful deal doesn't necessarily mean they're good at leaving feedback) and even less so by the fact they left positive trust to you

The difference is not huge but there is a difference. That difference is just enough to make him be the user with the highest trust for example. But of course there's a possibility that was not his intention

Maybe it didn't hurt anything. But it does raise questions when almost all of the users added by him do little good to the community, not just him or a few

This exactly. DT1 members should add users to DT2 if their feedback helps the community, not just because they were trading partners or received positive trust from them
If this rule is applied then it's not possible 10 out of 12 users added by OgNasty left positive trust to him and none of them significantly helped the community
I only see 2 options. Worst case scenario: OgNasty added them to boost their own trust. Best case scenario: OgNasty really doesn't know the role of DT1 members and doesn't apply this rule

I appreciate you checked your list and are open to suggestions. I'll check it too and post only if I find something


I encourage everyone to check Blazed's and also philipma1957's lists and post comments.
While the decision of how DT1 members handle their trust lists belongs only to them and the decision of which DT1 members are excluded or included belongs only to theymos, because those decisions affect everyone in the forum we all must check it and provide feedback

I know that. I insist, I just want to understand why DT1 members added those users
Do you find any explanation why nonnakip was added? You seem neutral, of course I'll really consider your possible explanation

I know that too. I'm still digging deeper and help is much appreciated. Discarding everything is not helping, digging with me is

I'm open to be corrected and I'll admit if I'm wrong. But I'm not open to be discarded without arguments
philipma1957 is suspicious of me and that's perfectly fine. But he's really checked his list. Of course it's fine he keeps the users he considers must stay after his checking
I no longer believe he is abusing the trust system

OgNasty has just denied everything, even straightforward cases like nonnakip, and hasn't given any explanations about that at all

Tomatocage hasn't reacted yet. Let's see what happens


I appreciate you re-checked them

Feedback from other users would be helpful here then. It seems you're very open to listening to them

Do check what happened by your deletions. Do verify what would happen if you remove more users. Do keep your exclusions if you've checked them and don't trust the feedback they've left. Do leave negative trust to those whose trust stopped being red because of your exclusions (if any). Do not trust me. I'm happy you did check your trust list, whatever the result

I don't see how I could prove I don't have a hidden agenda, even if I disclose who I am

I really appreciate you didn't take this as an attack to you (even though you're suspicious) and instead were open to check your list

What does quota have to do with anything?... It seems we're misunderstanding each other
The issue here is that it seems a few DT1 users abused the system and added several users to DT2 only because they left positive trust to them

I'm just trying to understand why DT1 users really added the users they added. They should be added because the trust they leave is helpful to the community
I'll illustrate this with the most extreme example I've found: nonnakip. He left trust only to OgNasty. So, why was he added to DT2?
If I fail to find any explanation for this then I conclude the reason is exactly that: he left positive trust to the DT1 member who added him

How exactly does the inclusion of nonnakip help the community and decentralizes the trust system? He left trust only to you, no one else at all

Explain why you think all of them are outstanding members of the community that deserve to be DT2 members. You haven't explained that at all. They have barely left a few trust among all of them
The only thing most of them have in common is leaving few trusts and including you in that feedback

While of course leaving trust to you is not a reason to automatically exclude them it's definitely not a reason to include them either


No. I'm not implying that. But of course that's a factor, among several others
If a user barely leaves any feedback at all then I do not understand why he was considered to DT2 in the first place


It is definitely a bad thing if they left trust only to you and you are a DT1 member
And it is probably a bad thing if they left trust only to a few users besides you

I'm including all users added to DT2 by you, every single one of them. I only left out users also added by other DT1 members. They would be DT2 anyway without you doing anything

You didn't comment on any single one of them, no even nonnakip who left positive trust only to you and nobody else. Why did you add him to DT2?

Most of the users you added haven't left too many trust (besides to you) so probably I won't find too many feedback that should be removed. That's not the issue here. Re-read OP and my previous posts to better understand the issue

Obviously you do that. You've added 14 new users to DT2 (i.e. not added by other DT1 users, they're DT2 only because of you). 10 of them left positive trust to you so it's obvious that's the main factor for you to add someone to DT2. That's 71.4% of them, actually some progress versus the 83% before I started this thread but still 94 points (100 soon)

Here are all 14 users added to DT2 by you along with some comments:
allinvain: Left positive trust to you.
molecular: Left trust only to 4 users, last one 3 years ago, no scammers tagged
naypalm: Left positive trust to you.
mdude77: Left positive trust to you.
Bees Brothers: Left positive trust to you. The last trust left was more than 2 years ago
bigtimespaghetti: Left positive trust to you.
nonnakip: Left positive trust to you. Actually he's left only one trust and it was to you. The only change adding him produced was adding 10 more points to you, nothing else at all
MarkAz: No scammers tagged at all.
FiniteByDesign: No scammers tagged at all.
ManeBjorn: Left positive trust to you.
bithalo: Left positive trust to you.
mindtrip: Left positive trust to you.
Rmcdermott927
Finksy: Left positive trust to you. Last trust sent one year ago, but has left a few

I didn't find any really active users in your list at all


I know you're the user with the most positive trust (http://dev.martinlawrence.ca/bpip/). You trust manipulation was enough for this, no need to go to the thousands and make it even more obvious. Of course you wouldn't be #1 if you weren't DT1
However the fact you've made a lot of successful deals and thus received positive trust doesn't have anything to do with how well you decide which users to add to DT2. That's obvious, I'm sure you really know this

Please argue (with arguments) instead of just bragging. Have an open mind to realize and correct your faults instead of just blindly denying them

Actually your trust went down to 328: -0 / +34
Probably because of someone removed by philipma1957
Your abuse rating seems to be still the same

Do add several users, just make sure you add them because of the (positive and negative) trust they leave to others and the good they do to the forum,
not only because they left positive trust to you (as 83.3% of your list when I started this thread), and avoid the conflict of interests

Again. You should check at my arguments and decide for yourself. It shouldn't matter who I am

Here are some comments about some of the users listed by you:

CrazyGuy: hasn't left any trust in a long time
kano: no conflict of interests as he hasn't left trust to you, but has left only one single trust and it was 5 years ago. I don't see why you consider he should be on DT2
Cablez: hasn't left any trust in a long time
davecoin: no negative trust left at all (no scammers tagged)
buysolar: only 3 positive trust left, 2 of them to you. The last left feedback was 3 years ago
not.you: not active during the last year but has tagged some scammers
btcxcg: Only 5 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent. Last feedback was 4 years ago
generalt: No negative trust sent. Last (positive) feedback sent was one year ago
Mikestang: Last feedback was sent 2 years ago, but he did tag 1 scammer at least
vg54dett: Only 6 positive trust left, including yourself. No negatives sent at all
AriesIV10: Positive trust only to 2 users, including yourself, only one negative sent

I'd appreciate if you can check again kano, buysolar, btcxcg, vg54dett and AriesIV10
(other users, post your comments about these members. I don't want philipma1957 or others to believe I have personal issues against any of them)
And you may consider adding users who leave much more feedback after you verify they're not abusing as I didn't find any really active user in your list


I'll check OgNasty's and Tomatocage's lists later

Maybe. But DT1 members should actively work to improve the forum. They should add users who leave rightful trust, not just the ones they've traded with
Their special powers should come with special behavior. I think it's absolutely OK for regular users to add to their trust only (or mainly) users they've traded with, but not so for DT1 users

Yes. Definitely the real reason to add someone must be you believe they will leave accurate feedback, not because they left trust to you or because they can be trusted with money

Fair point. I'll try to investigate more, mainly for the top 3: philipma1957 (I see he's doing so himself, thanks!), OgNasty and Tomatocage
I want to see mainly what users where added to DT2 only because of each one of them and if they're really actively leaving trust to others and thus helping the forum
As others have suggested I also want to know if they were added after or before leaving positive trust to those DT1 members but I don't see how. Let me know if someone can help on this


Non-public sections are despicable for most non-moderators users. It won't change the research significantly

This trick does change the trust of those involved. philipma1957 seems much more trusted as you mention (but again, he's already working on that), OgNasty falsely appears as the user with the most trust (http://dev.martinlawrence.ca/bpip/), Tomatocage increased their trust but less significantly

I would be very interested if this is happening. Post your arguments (i.e. facts or data)


Yes it needs work. I'll work more on this and I want help. I agree knowing those dates would help but I can't get them

The fact he's already working to solve this issue makes me think so too


Exactly. The feedback that person has left for others should carry more weight. I will research more to see if users added by these 3 DT1 members are useful "in the grand scheme of the network"


Wonderful! Great work. Thanks. I'll check those users later and post here. I hope you can appreciate my feedback

Why? You should check my arguments much more than who I am

I don't think "I have not done anything with him  since 2013" is a good argument here. He should stay if he's left useful trust to others, not if he's done anything with you
I see he hasn't left any feedback since almost a year ago and has left only one negative trust (and without reference) in total so I agree he should be removed but for those reasons


Yes. They shouldn't but they do. that's the reason why DT2 members must leave positive trust considering the fact their feedback is trusted by default (i.e. leave positive trust only to trusted users)
and DT1 members should take this into account to consider adding someone to DT2


Thanks for this!

Someone sent a PM to me asking me about the numbers too. It's very simple:
First I see your trust with default settings. i.e. my trust list looks like this:
and I see your trust, currently:
190: -0 / +20 instead of the previous 260: -0 / +27
Then I exclude you (or the DT1 member being checked) so my trust list loos like this:
and check your trust again:
45: -0 / +5

The difference is the trust you've got because of the fact you added several users as DT2. You wouldn't have that extra trust if you weren't DT1

Yes my motivations are completely transparent: I want DT1 members to stop abusing their powers, especially (in this order) philipma1957, OgNasty and Tomatocage
I have presented my arguments (i.e. facts) along with my opinions and continue to do so. I don't try to start a fight. I ask you to read these arguments and refrain from attacking me with your "shut up"

Of course when you add someone to your trust list it's very likely you've dealt with him and positive trust has been exchanged, I said exactly so in OP (please read it). However there's a conflict of interest which should be avoided as much as honestly possible.
While trust may have been exchanged, it's not a requirement for that to happen. You can realize someone leaves valid and helpful trust by reading what he posts and what feedback he leaves, with what arguments and references. Actually this is a better method than dealing with him because here we're talking about the trust they leave, not if they can be trusted with money.

Maybe this process is somewhat easier for moderators but of course you don't have to be a moderator to make that little research, it's based on public information. Besides a honest DT1 user can just ask those added to DT2 just by him to leave him neutral feedback (if at all), that's a simple request without negative consequences. Conflict of interest must be avoided whenever possible, that's true for anyone with power, here and IRL. This conflict of interests happens only because they are DT1. That's not the case for other users. That's why another solution would be for them to be removed from DT1 so they can keep acting as a regular user without any issues. If they are on DT1 then their main reason to add someone to their trust list should be helping the forum, not themselves

So it's definitely normal to expect DT1 members to add some users they've exchanged positive trust with but definitely not more than half. The 440% increase of trust made by philipma1957, the +94 points added by OgNasty (along with the fact 83% of users he's added to DT2 left positive trust to him) or the +60 points added by Tomatocage are definitely wrong

The goal is to add users who leave correct trust without abuse, helping others to recognize trusted users from scammers
If you think the users you've added meet that requirement and should stay as DT2 then ask them to remove the feedback they left to you or make it neutral, otherwise you're abusing the system to increase your trust

I considered the percentage but even more the total amount of added trust points. You are red because you added 94 points (soon to be 100) to yourself. Specifically you've added 12 users not added by any other DT1 member (i.e. they are DT2 only because of you) and 10 of them left positive trust to you (83%). It's more than obvious the fact they added positive trust to you is a very important factor for you to decide to make them DT2

I wasn't sure if Tomatocage had to be orange or red, I had to put the limit somewhere. Imagine he is red too if that makes you feel better. Anyhow besides philipma1957 and you it's clear Tomatocage, Cyrus and maybe HostFat and Blazed should do something to prevent this conflict of interest

It's understandable users will add to their trust list several people they've traded with. It's likely trust may have been exchanged with several of them
However for DT1 members there's a conflict of interests because adding those users will increase their own trust. They should avoid doing that more so than regular users
This is especially unacceptable if a considerable percentage of those users were added only by that DT1 user

I've checked all DT1 members for this behaviour and all of them (except Maged) increased their own trust score
It's acceptable to increase it by a few points, 15% or even 20%. I would consider that normal
However using this trick to increase their own score by 10+ unique trusts (eventually 100+ trust points) or by 35% or more shows it was intentional

There are 2 DT1 members who have manipulated their trust list to increase their own trust by 10 and even 22 unique trusts (100 or 220 points) totalling 40% and 440%!
They should immediately remove those users from their trust lists (and thus from DT2) or they should be removed themselves from DT1
DT1 members should not use their special powers to manipulate the system and appear more trusted than they really are

Here's the complete data for every DT1 user. This is obtained by checking their trust with default settings (only DefaultTrust) and compare it when explicitly excluding that specific user from the trust list (i.e. DefaultTrust and ~DT1user). The difference shows the artificial increase in trust due to them adding users to DT2.

The following information is included:
  DT1 username
  Trust with default settings
  Trust ~excluding the DT1 user (i.e. without counting DT2 additions made by that DT1 user)
  Trust artificially increased (percentage of increase)

MARCH 26th	MARCH 20th
hilariousandco 58: -0 / +8 50: -0 / +7 +8: +1 (14.3%)	hilariousandco 57: -0 / +7 50: -0 / +6 +7: +1 (16.7%)
dooglus 134: -0 / +14 114: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)	dooglus 134: -0 / +14 114: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)
Maged 30: -0 / +3 30: -0 / +3 +0: +0 (0%)	Maged 30: -0 / +3 30: -0 / +3 +0: +0 (0%)
dserrano5 10: -0 / +1 0: -0 / +0 +10: +1 (inf%)	dserrano5 10: -0 / +1 0: -0 / +0 +10: +1 (inf%) (Huge percentage, but only one unique trust)
Tomatocage 210: -0 / +21 150: -0 / +15 +60: +6 (40%)	Tomatocage 220: -0 / +22 160: -0 / +16 +60: +6 (37.5%)
SaltySpitoon 140: -0 / +14 120: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)	SaltySpitoon 140: -0 / +14 120: -0 / +12 +20: +2 (16.7%)
philipma1957* 105: -0 / +11 105: -0 / +11 +0: +0 (0%)	philipma1957 260: -0 / +27 45: -0 / +5 +215: +22 (440%)
Cyrus 62: -0 / +7 42: -0 / +5 +20: +2 (40%)	Cyrus 62: -0 / +7 42: -0 / +5 +20: +2 (40%)
Blazed 304: -0 / +31 255: -0 / +26 +49: +5 (19.2%)	Blazed 334: -0 / +34 285: -0 / +29 +49: +5 (17.2%)
theymos 161: -0 / +17 141: -0 / +15 +20: +2 (13.3%)	theymos 160: -0 / +17 140: -0 / +15 +20: +2 (13.3%)
HostFat 40: -0 / +4 0: -0 / +0 +40: +4 (inf%)	HostFat 40: -0 / +4 0: -0 / +0 +40: +4 (inf%) (Huge percentage, but only 4 unique trust)
OgNasty 298: -0 / +31 194: -0 / +20 +104: +11 (55%)	OgNasty 338: -0 / +35 244: -0 / +25 +94: +10 (40%)

* philipma1957's trust without counting his own trust list has greatly increased (from 45 to 105) during the last week because OgNasty added several users who were initially added only by philipma1957. Besides this change out of philipma1957's control, he made a huge change in his list which produced his trust with default settings to drop from 260 to 105 (and it would be even less without the mentioned change made by OgNasty)

---

I've marked them with these colours:
Ideal, no artificial trust increase
Acceptable, normal
Barely acceptable
Mostly unacceptable but could have been a mistake which must be fixed immediately
Absolutely unacceptable, clear trust manipulation