-snip-
A hypocrite scammer and his concern trolling at its finest:
There is a difference between being unable to articulate why you believe someone is a small in a small number of instances and using the fact that you "do not trust" someone as a basis for a negative rating in almost every instance.
When someone is deciding if they want to trade with him, they will know that a negative rating means “~this person scammed you or you strongly believe he is a scammer”
Eh, yeah that's probably true and I realize digaran hasn't scammed anyone that I know of, but I'm not sure if he's a person I'd want to trade with--imagine trying to do a deal with someone as mentally unstable as he is. I didn't tag him because, as I've said before, I think he's basically a harmless nincompoop who barks a lot but hasn't yet bit anyone hard enough to make the skin bleed. I don't think he's been tagged inappropriately, because his taggers don't trust him. Period.
In 2014, I
called out a purchased account on DT that was being used to
further a scam. In response to my opening that thread, I received a negative rating from that person. Logically speaking, he did not trust me, as you generally will not trust someone calling out your scams, or otherwise accusing you of something that, if proven true would have negative consequences for you. Would you consider chalidore's negative rating against me to be "valid" on that same basis?
If you ask my opinion, suchmoon gave a negative rating to the OP because she does not like the services the OP is providing. The OP is offering to contest negative ratings the recipient feels is unjust, which has the potential to expose negative ratings given out for less than kosher reasons.
That quote from the trust page "this person scammed you or you strongly believe he is a scammer" has become just a guideline and we all know it. Bitcointalk doesn't have a tool to alert people that a member is a shitposter, or a merit beggar, or an insane person who hasn't scammed anyone but probably shouldn't be trusted. It's a one-size-fits-all trust system, and people should look into any comments on anyone's trust page and make their own decision based on what is said and what's in the reference link (if one is given).
I don't know about you, but I don't send money to what is "probably" the correct address, and I don't see why you (or anyone who cares about their reputation) would act any differently when it comes to handing out negative ratings.
The fact that someone is a shit poster is handled by the merit system, and handled by the fact that they will get banned if they post too much nonsense.
Just because someone has not scammed someone, does not mean a negative rating is not appropriate. A negative rating would still be appropriate if there was a failed scam attempt, or if someone is showing signs they plan on attempting on scamming someone in the future.
I might agree with looking at comments on trust pages for comments that are not in your trust list as these comments to not play a factor in trust scores, and you generally should not ignore scam reports unless you can verify they are invalid. However the reason someone is in your trust network is because they give accurate ratings, and if you are finding that someone is giving out ratings that you are ignoring, then this person should not be in your trust network.