I'm coming to the conclusion that this statement isn't as simple as it would appear.

Lets take an actual example. I executed a couple of small purchases of Bitcoin with JackG. They were very quick and easy, and I gave him some positive ratings. That is the primary function of the trust system, and is based on actual events. Now lets move on into the world of conjecture, and consider the possibility of JackG selling his account ( not likely in my opinion ). The buyer would probably pay more for an account with positive trust in double figures, and may consider using it for fraudulent purposes. This means that the sale and purchase of accounts has to be drawn into the trust ranking, and is the reason that I believe that account selling should not be allowed.

Now we have to look at signature spamming and cheating on programme managers. If a member is prepared to do that, then he may be prepared to cheat in his trades in an attempt to increase his "earnings". All of this means that "caveat emptor" rules, and you have to consider trust ratings as just a basic guideline, and a resource for further research before you enter into a trade.

My negative trust for a member, who just posted a quote with no further comment, was based on the fact that he was attempting to cheat the activity and merit systems in the forum, and this indicated a person of low moral fibre in my opinion. This could be an indication of willingness to cheat bounty managers and other members in the future.