Lots of people are bothered when they lose Trusted User status. And understandably so. For the clear implication is that they are no longer trusted. But they'll never openly acknowledge that. Why? Well, that's apparently a big secret.
A more neutral term -- one that doesn't imply that the writer did something unwelcome, would be much better. Otherwise they're sending a false message -- that the user is somehow less trusted. No wonder a lot of people are bothered by this.
Anyone here could come up with, I bet, at least a dozen ways to say it in a much more neutral fashion, just as I do below.
From the rules:
http://www.dkosopedia.com/...
Trusted Users
One of the factors that goes into determination of TU status is time. If a user stops commenting, or their comments stops getting recommendations, eventually that user will lose TU status. This can be easily remedied by posting more comments that meet with the approval of the readership community.
Let's say time is not an issue. Then what? No answer here.
Here is a recent diary on what is a Trusted User, by Kossack rs, in pertinent part:
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Trusted User FAQ
by rs
The exact amount of mojo required and the precise nature of the other variables that go into the formula are not made public.
It's also possible you've been banned; this is rare for Trusted Users, but can happen.
(Question): I am quite upset about my loss of TU status!
You really, really shouldn't be.
(Question): What is TU Status not?
"Trusted User Status" is not an indicator of trust.
(Question): OK, so if Trusted User Status doesn't indicate trustworthiness, and it doesn't indicate status, then why is it called that?
Uh, because that's what it's always been called? Not all names are good descriptions of the underlying thing, particularly when it's left to software engineers to come up with the names.
(From answers/comments later in the thread, by rs):
Yes, the reasons are a big secret. And no, you can't "learn" from it. There is no way to "learn" how to obtain TU Status, or to "learn" how to keep it, and this is entirely by design.
Let me devise a Q and A to try and summarize all that back-and-forth and to try and get to the root of the problem:
Q: Why use the term "trusted"?
A: Nothing to worry about! It doesn't imply you're not trusted if it's taken away from you.
Q: Then why not use a different term? If "trusted" status is lost it certainly implies, on its face, that you're no longer "trusted" - right?
A: Oh, no. it doesn't imply that at all.
Q. Then why not dump it?
A: Well it's just too hard to come up with a substitute. And besides, our software people are making us do this, so it's not our fault anyway. You can't blame us. Oh, yes, and we've always done it that way. So there's another reason.
Q: So why not use more neutral terms that are not accusatory or pejorative?
A: No, it's too hard. We'd have to use phrases like (a whole big, lumbering long bunch of words -- [see the diary]).
Q: Why not, for example, simply Group A and Group B for the two groups?
A: Because it's a either a Trusted User Group or it's not. (See the "This goes to 11" scene from the movie This is Spinal Tap for an analogy).
Q: But to be kicked out of a "Trusted User" group implies that person is no longer trusted, right?
A: No it doesn't.
Franz Kafka would be proud.