So you feel that all users should be treated equal. I'm not convinced that I should treat Supa the same as Badbear. I would not trade with the former, but would with the latter. And on that same train of thought why should I not value the (trust) opinion of certain members over that of others?
What you're suggesting sounds silly to me. I do not trust those who have proven to be fraudulent and I don't value their trust feedback either. I trust those who have good track records on here more (though I will still do my due diligence) and I value their trust more. Now I pick those members myself, but I did base some decisions of the Default Trust list. It seems like a reasonable default to me.
As said before ratings are given based on the behavior of the user who's suspected of scamming and the experience of the user giving the feedback. Those on the receiving end can defend themselves. Can you provide an example where
1) someone was suspected of scamming
2) they provided information to show they were legit
3) the negative feedback did not get removed and
4) the person that left the negative feedback is (still) in the Default Trust list?
I guess I have argued enough on this topic and have had my say. I may sound silly and so I think about these Virtual Police Inspectors. For me, I'm educated and I don't care if anyone thinks anything about me.
@bold: That's what I as well do but I even chose not to deal with them if I find their behavior suspicious or find them rude. That should be chosen by me instead of making others forcing me to deal with these trusted members and use them as escrow. There are only 1-2 members whom I trust here and if I want to deal with them, I will. Badbear is the admin so I said that except admins, there shouldn't be any default trust members that I should trust by default but that's me.
I don't know if this user is on the default trust list but he is a legendary member who has left negative trust "Luke-Jr 0: -0 / +0(0) 2014-08-31 0.00000000 Reference "Too good to be true", or at least teaches people to be scammer victims (see link)" on Bipolar's profile. I noticed that Bipolar isn't a fraud but still many people thought he is suspicious and left negative trust feedback which they removed later but not all who removed it. Now someone will argue that one negative trust doesn't matter. I would only say "Continue your argument."