Neutral trust with a warning the account "may be" changed hands is enough.
The only problem with Neutral trust is if a person has a zero trust rating, many people don't even bother to check the trust comments.
That is the issue. The trust system is supposed to be a simple guide for noobs right?
At least that's my interpretation of the trust system.
I personally will deal with people with a negative trust rating, for example.
The trust system is a warning to noobs:
Be cautious, the person you're dealing with is considered likelier to rip you off than the mean by other, more experienced users.Unfortunately though no system is free from exploitation.
Fortunate for us that the trust system itself has a built-in mechanism to cope with abuse: the trust list.
A person abusing trust is likelier than the mean to be excluded from trust lists with "~".
Of course, it's not a perfect system, but I personally feel that blatant abuse will not go unnoticed / unsanctioned.
The trust list does nothing. It is crammed with people with people who are PROVEN untrustworthy.
The trust system is now just an add on to the merit system which is just a system that allows you to give merits to your pals so they can be on the trust system with you.
Blatant abuse will not go unnoticed because I have brought it to the attention of DT members who are too scared to even witness a blatant lie in black and white and admit it is a lie. So it it appears that DT members will not red trust liars but for some reason will red trust people they believe "could" have gained control of another account.
How about you qwk will you witness evidence of a DT member blatantly lying and if you agree with me it was a lie will you red trust them and remove them from your inclusions. Yes or No?
Or will you willingly support a proven liar into a position of trust on this board. Yes or no?