-snip-
If you're conducting business in a legitimate way, then no one's "voice", not even a DT member's, should have any effect on your business.
Realistically, it does though.
Yes, I am aware of that. But so does any negative review on any business. We can go back and forth on that, or we can agree that it shouldn't, but it is what it is.
True, but I think the consequences should be considered when leaving a rating. More below.
As long as the Trust Rating is not being abused,
What would be an abusive rating for you?
Hmm...
1) a rating based on unreasonable prejudice such as racism, sexism, homophobia, different political and socio-cultural views, etc.
2) outright lies, oftentimes slanderous
3) blatant attempts to drive away customers from a competing service
4) a revenge rating which holds no merit
5) spam
There's more I'm sure, but I can't be expected to know all of them offhand, especially if I've yet to encounter them.
In the case described on the OP, I can't say that it's abusive, since the same rating is applied to other members when the aforementioned rater encounters other members in the same circumstances. Whether you agree or not that participants of account trading are deserving of a negative rating, you can surely see that the rationale behind the neg is reasonable, and therefore justifiable from the perspective of the rater. As long as the rating is based on something reasonable and justifiable, then that can't be called abusive, now can it?
Neither can I, its not an abusive rating. I wouldnt give it though. At least not currently, if someone reads this 2021 and I changed my mind, sue me. It leads to what is currently common though, throw away accounts are used to sell accounts. This makes it impossible for account sellers to establish a reputation of good quality product. Good quality meaning, not hacked, not farmed with spam, signed message to confirm it was traded freely. This makes this market more confusing and might possibly do more bad than good.
-snip-
valid reason -snip- engage in account deals.
Some people would consider it a legitimate enough reason, yes. However, let's face it. Most people who buy accounts don't just earn from participating in a signature campaign on one account.
You know that, because...? I dont know what most people do with accounts once they are traded. I only have very limited experience in this market, mostly from failed loans. I am almost certain that none of them have been used for nefarious reasons.
The rest either start scamming or spamming with a single bought account, or they are one of those rarities who get by with earning without being noticed (let's call them "innocent" for argument's sake). Now, some people would prefer to give the account traders the benefit of the doubt, if just to save one "innocent". Others would prefer to err on the side of caution. Both sides have their own perspectives, and both sides have merits. And since both sides have merits, then it also holds true that they can give out whatever rating they want to give based on any actionable evidence. That's the point of the Trust rating, after all.
Which is also the reason why there is a discussion here. If all agreed on one side, it would be simple. How do you come to this conclusion though? Do you have experience as account trader or with traded accounts?
-snip-
All trust ratings are opinions. However, valid trust ratings are usually a reflection of some sort of action. Trading accounts is an action. It's not much different from newbies getting tagged for asking loans without collateral, investor based games getting tagged on sight, and similar. In all of those cases, technically no scam (or similar) has yet occurred.
^ THIS.Maybe I should leave counter ratings then. After all, its just my opinion that these ratings should not be given. I prefer discussions where both sides are open to change their mind. It seems they almost never happen here.