In the past reputation loans (which there has not been an explanation as to why the loan was given other then so tspacepilot can prove he will repay) has been something the community does not appreciate and others have received negative trust for both giving and receiving such reputation loans. The reason for this is that there is no reason for the trade other then for the trust rating.
This case is the opposite. There is no reason for the trust rating other than the trade.
This causes their trust rating to reflect that they have had more of a history of trading honestly then is true because they would have one trust rating and zero honest trades (and no receiving money and then instantly giving it back is not an actual trade).
Then that doesn't apply in this case either. My trust rating of him is very explicit. It says:
"I loaned him just over 1 BTC worth of CLAM and he paid it back without any problems."
I'm not suggesting that I'm basing my rating on a long history of successful trades. I explicitly state that it's based on a single loan of 1 BTC worth of CLAM.
To respond to your implication that my rating is based on hearsay, as I mentioned several times in the past, my rating is based solely on what tspacepilot said, and what my understanding of the rules of coinchat are/were. However I really did not even need to rely on the former because tspacepilot admitted to receiving money that he knew (at the very least after the fact) did not belong to him:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=303613.msg3252748#msg3252748 (he locked/censored the thread, so I cannot use the "quote" feature of the forum)
I cashed out more than he wanted from his site which gives out free bitcoins for chatting.
I don't see how it could be any more clear that he received money that he should not have......would a signed confession be enough? How about an admission in open court?
Nobody's claiming that tsp didn't receive more than TF wanted to pay him. That much is clear. What is being disputed is whether tsp is "a scammer".
As I understand it tsp was willing to discuss the matter with TF, but TF was unreasonable about it and refused to even discuss the matter unless tsp paid him relatively large apparently arbitrary amounts of money. tsp refused to pay the demanded amount, as I think anyone else would have done. I'm sure you've heard this version of events many times yet you continue your attempt to paint tsp as a scammer. Why is that?