Thanks, Salty. While I'm saddened that tf's unsupported allegations would lead you not to do business with me (were there ever an opportunity), I really really appreciate your respectful tone and consideration of the argument. I think it stands in stark contrast to most of what's been posted in this thread. If I could get tf to talk with me in the same way, I would suppose that he and I would have been able to work something out.
Given your analysis of the free-form nature of the trust system (despite the fact that the trust thread seems to construe it much more narrowly as relevant to currency trades on bitcointalk), do you really think it's a good thing to have people known for reactionary and incindiary usage of 'risked btc' as part of the default trust scheme? If the system is set up to include things like personal grudges not relevant to trading, then should there really be a 'default trust' list? Finally, if the trust system isn't really about marketplace trust, isn't it more of a confusingly labelled 'friends list', like social networks or something? I mean, if tf's lowering of my trust isn't more than a glorified 'unfriending', then I suppose I wouldn't have been that concerned. However, saying that he 'risked xxBTC' on me (when he demonstratably hasn't) and demanding payment of that amount feels like something more than 'i dont like tspacepilot'.
I'm not saying I think you are a bad person, I'm just saying that in light of this case, I find your arguement invalid, and Tradefortress' allegations to be reasonable and believable based on the dialog between the two of you. I do believe that the amount may be incorrect, but the principal behind the thread/accusation, is that in my opinion, you exploited Coinchat and recieved Bitcoins that you should not have based on the site's rules in place. Your first comment was that you didn't know about the rules until after you were banned, to justify what happened. If someone gains unintentionally as you are claiming, as a result of ignorance of the rules, it would make sense that you apologize, and refund the amount in question. In my opinion, it is a valid claim that because TradeFortress suffered a financial loss due to the exploit, it is reasonable for him to make a mark on your trust until you two come to a resolution.
The reason TradeFortress is on the default trust list, to my understanding, is because he found a weak point in the forums security, and rather than exploiting it, he helped to fix it. That paired with his previous history of leaving accurate and reliable feedback for others, he was put onto the default trust list. All grudges aside, just the black and white picture, you took money from Tradefortress in a way that was not designed or allowed in Coinchat, and because of that he pegged you as untrustworthy. I don't really see any malicious intent in TradeFortress' amount that he pegged you as owing, I just think that in order to get a completely accurate figure, he would have had to spend additional time getting the facts completely straight for a case that didn't matter to him, because he wasn't going to see his money again. So rather than spend his time on a lost case, he make a ballpark guess.
As far as me not trading with you again, that was a little harsh, but I was trying to use myself as an example to get my point across. Your best bet is buying/selling things is to always use escrow. Trustworthiness isn't as big of a deal if someone reliable is holding the funds that could be scammed on either side. That or work something out with TradeFortress, and get this thing settled. Although, even then, escrow is still a good plan.