You're still not addressing any of my points. Saly's post is still just speculation therefore your rating is also based on speculation.
Salty said that he thinks he is an alt of supa.
Thinks=no proof=speculation
Meanwhile...
I did not give him a negative because he is speaking out against me, nor have I ever done that (if I did then you would have gotten a negative a long time ago).
But later on in the same post you admit that you check the past of people that speak against you just to find reasons to give them a negative rating.
Although just because someone is speaking out against me doesn't mean that I
won't give them a negative if I find a reason to do so. As evidenced
recently, trolling me (including speaking out against me) will likely attract attention for one to check for any transgressions and/or prior scams.
Why? Because they spoke against you and it
attracted your attention, you find this a good enough reason to dig into their posting history and give them a negative rating if you find something worthy. You've even done that in cases where your negative rating was the only one and no one else had complaints about those people. This time you do it based on speculation?
Why post any kind of evidence if you can just fling accusations around and achieve the same effect? People used to respect the standards of the trust system, now the ones in charge of it abuse it so much the standard for leaving a rating now has dropped to the point people find it acceptable to negative rate people because they disagree with something they said. This is Vod's favorite game: