I expect people on the default trust to not just stand by silently while this kind of abuse goes on. Usually it is the complete opposite and they join in on the abuse to earn themselves brown nose points, and occasionally actual positive trust. The default trust is a broken system pretending to be distributed while in reality operating for a centralized position of authority unwilling to enforce or publish uniform rules of use, and some times actively participating in the abuse. I don't think other users would be allowed to use multiple alts to spam a users trust, and people have been removed for far less.

Being on the default trust is like a magnet for money, because people have a direct incentive to trade with those on the default trust in order to increase their own ratings, but that would be invisible to you if you don't trade or until you are removed from it. Additionally, when you are on the default trust list it increases the number of ratings that are counted as positive towards your total visible green rating because of the people in your own trust network rating you (making you appear to be a more appealing trading partner). Then if that is not enough centralized control, all it takes is two high ranked users to make sure no one else can add you to the default trust. That doesn't sound at all decentralized system of merit to me, it sounds more like a political party where those that speak up suddenly find themselves on the outside with little or no explanation.

People who are on the default trust list will not open their mouths when they see abuse like this, because as I said it is like a Mexican standoff, no one wants to be the one to stick their neck out for something that doesn't directly affect them. As a result the system is abused over and over, and no one gives a shit until they are the target, then they get ignored like everyone else does. The ones who have influence are afraid of losing it, and the ones who don't are completely dismissed. This is exactly what is happening in tspacepilot's case.

Since the introduction of neutral ratings, I see no excuse whatsoever for people on the default trust being allowed to throw negatives around like candy without some kind of factual basis or personal involvement in the alleged fraudulent transaction. The excuse of warning other users of potential issues holds no water any more, because a neutral rating can achieve that perfectly well. The "trust list" no longer has anything to do with trust, but is simply a popularity contest and a ranking of the biggest ball-washers, because anyone who doesn't polish those balls gets removed or excluded at the drop of a hat regardless of how long they have been trading, how much they have been trusted with, or how honestly they transact.