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?
Because DefaultTrust people are supposed to hand out judgement that would be seen by the rest of the forum by default. So, from natural logic, it needs to be handed to everyone doing the same thing, in the same way. Ponzis in disguise only turn out to scam, when they fail. When you are labelling a running program as Ponzi, relying on your "strong believe" and NOT labelling another one because of "no evidence", then you are acrually showing discriminatory nature, which is not supposed to be coming from people on DefaultTrust.
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?
Because it is
believed to be untrustworthy, not proven. Right now, you can leave any feedback, because you are not on DT. But, once you'll be on DT, you need to revise those feedback and be sure that you are not being partial to anyone, i.e. giving -ve to one but not to another for the same thing, which is the case in this thread, as I "strongly believe".