If you were a genuine user, I'd expect you to know the difference between:
1) Forum rules.
2) Forum etiquette/trust system.
The forum rules do not determine for what reasons negative trust ratings should be left. If you break the forum rules, you get banned not left with negative ratings (usually). If you knew this, you would have known that the right place for this thread was Reputation and not Meta.
1) Avoiding guilt -> like in OP's case.
2) Attacking me.
1) Forum rules.
2) Forum etiquette/trust system.
The forum rules do not determine for what reasons negative trust ratings should be left. If you break the forum rules, you get banned not left with negative ratings (usually). If you knew this, you would have known that the right place for this thread was Reputation and not Meta.
And I am enrolled in a signature campaign. I could get banned for something that is not my fault.
It's my fault that you're shit posting, right? Negative trust just seems wrong.
Not necessarily. Spamming or account farming/trading is shady in its own regard, and in almost all of the situations detrimental to the forum. I do not trust any user that engages in such dealings.Perhaps global moderators can be given the power to issue temp bans as well.
Only two moderators are able to temp. ban IIRC, and 1 isn't even active anymore. As it currently stands, there are only two (active) people that can ban people.Change the way you post and in a month come back and ask nicely to have the feedback removed. 
Correct. Some users that admitted that it's their fault and asked nicely for a second chance already had their ratings converted into neutral (for later evaluation) in the same day. The other cases that I've encountered are :1) Avoiding guilt -> like in OP's case.
2) Attacking me.