It looks like he is
trying to get some "madical assistance", via soliciting the shipping of illegal drugs to him in the US. (the post in question has been reported and may be deleted).
His feedback is accurate though.
False. The feedback that he leaves does not point any anyone actually stealing from others, nor attempting to (and/or planning on) stealing from others, which is what negative trust is designed for.
irrelevant ad-hominem attack
It doesn't take a genius to recognise the
fact that sold accounts are often used to scam others therefore the seller is just as guilty as the buyer.
I would disagree on this point. From my experience, the majority of sold accounts are used in a way that does not result in anyone getting scammed. Additionally, I believe that there are a small number of serial scammers who buy accounts to scam, and that if they were unable to buy accounts that they would be able to scam with either their own farmed accounts or their own newbie(new) accounts.
There are also a number of purchased accounts that have built up fairly decent amounts of trust due to trading honestly over fairly long(ish) periods of time.
The feedback that he leaves does not point any anyone actually stealing from others, nor attempting to (and/or planning on) stealing from others, which is what negative trust is designed for.
So by your definition I presume you feel that all those people that left you neutral/negative feedback are wrong as you did not plan to steal from others?
If no money was attempted to be stolen (nor that someone attempted to facilitate the theft of money), and you cannot reasonably say that certain actions would later lead to an attempt in the future (successful or not) attempt to steal money then you cannot reasonably say that someone is a scammer.
If you were to extend beyond the above criteria of when to leave negative trust, then you will quickly reach the point of leaving negative trust because you do not like their opinion and/or you do not like them personally and/or you do not like their business practices (of which do not result in the loss of any money).
For example, if a reputable person were to extend beyond the above criteria, could say that since you are selling
this Art on eBay, which also owns PayPal, which is used by many scammers, you are helping a platform that is used by many scammers, and are therefore helping scammers, and deserve negative trust.
Another example would be that someone claims to be "from" a certain zip code, but actually lives far away from that zip code, however they work within a few miles from that zip code, and the closest post office to their work is in the zip code they claim to be "from", and that a reputable person were to leave negative trust because they are "lying".
A neutral rating is much more complex because it is only used for "comments" and does not affect the trust score of the person leaving it.