The whole premise of OP's argument is faulty.
It's just an extension of the standard Ponzi promoter's argument that any critics are shills for the "competition".
I beg to disagree with you, though I disagree with OP as well. Probable Ponzis or their promoters, i.e. when the Ponzi has not yet fallen, should not be marked
-ve, because this only give advantage to the Ponzis having hold of DefaultTrust (level 1 & 2) accounts.
I don't understand what you are saying really. If I see a scheme being touted on here which makes me
"strongly believe that this person is a scammer" then leaving negative trust is appropriate. Why should that person's trust rating, Default or otherwise, affect that decision?
Theymos has introduced neutral trust for this and that should be used for probable Ponzis or their promoters. Otherwise, the whole concept of neutral trust become falacy.
I can't speak for Theymos and his reasoning.
Neutral trust is what it says: neutral comment. Why should I or anyone leave a neutral comment on someone whose actions are believed to be untrustworthy?