The only thing that really is trust abuse is lying, with a few exceptions.
That is a ridiculous assertion. Both positive and negative ratings have a clear description and if the situation doesnt match the description (reasonably), it is abuse.
Being a troll has nothing to do with the chances of someone not honoring their obligations in a trade, which is what the trust system is supposed to help people measure.
The same can be said in many other reasons for giving out ratings.
Thats not true. Behavior does have an influence on whether you'd trade with someone or not. I personally would not trade with someone who exhibits concerning behavior. The trust system is supposed to be about accurate feedback for members, the content is more or less decided by whats acceptable by the community, and to this point, giving someone a negative for trolling, being an account farmer, owning multiple accounts, being racist, etc isn't something thats unheard of. It would be abuse to claim that the guy is a serial scammer because of their behavior. It isn't abuse to point out that behavior however.
I personally wouldn't give out negatives for trolling, but I also wouldn't give out negatives for owning multiple accounts or account farming, and thats the generally accepted practice by the community. I however certainly would give out a negative if it was for harassment or something of that nature.
Again, I didn't read through Cryptohunter's posts to prove to myself whether there is anything worth being concerned about from their posts. My position is that if the behavior issue is subjectively accurate, then its worth noting. I'm not claiming the claim itself is accurate or not, I'm claiming that the basis of the claim, if accurate isn't abuse.
How is something subjectively accurate? I mean you seem an okay guy that is serious question not me taking the piss. How do you confirm it is accurate if it is subjective? I mean what criteria is there. I mean that leaves this open to anything really and reduces its value to zero if we all exercised it to the max without it being abuse.
For example take the lemons thing. What if i am really offended by people that do not talk about lemons in every post? so I just spam negs on everyone over and over as a DT member. Then someone is offended by not mentioning oranges. I mean it is true i think someone should love them and mention oranges in every post or negative DT. The system willl be ruined it is therefore abuse because it is not designed to be ruined like this. Are you saying people need to scan thousands of lemons oranges pears until they find a real scam accusation?
This is absurd and again you seem nice but this meta board is like an alternative reality where things that would usually be considered ludicrous and mad are now the normal and sensible way of things in meta. But logical reasonable things outside of meta are nonsense, conspiracies, lies and stupidity. The people with all the anti logic and that see no need to abide by any generally accepted conversation or debating rules or usual structure are the
Between suchmoon, foxy and the time machine, loyce the AI in progress, the lemons and TP's even stranger variant of logic and laudas ever present darkness lurking over everything pulling string and you can't help speculating you mention his neg trust you get one right after ....is malborozo connected to this king pin?
wow meta is a freaky place....
Malboroza get my red trust off asap and I let it slide this time. You messed up you assumed incorrectly and insanely that i was trying to deny that I had just posted something you had already box quoted and had in front of my face in public on the same page. Over drawing a sensible conclusion that I am denying the other quote that I did not say that was similar to something I did say that fitted the description of the quote I described to you.
Remove it or be removed or bring into question every DT that does not push you out. It is disgraceful.