I and corrected the value, making the rating perfectly valid. It seems to me you are more interested in character assassination than discussing the crux of the issue, the ambiguous state of the trust system and the rules in general. That is to say if the trust system had an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws none of this would have ever been an issue to begin with.
Your suggested "standards" are a subset of the current guidelines of the trust system so there is nothing to prevent you from using it the way you want to use it. However you don't seem to be following "an objective standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws" so it looks like you're just trolling.
My suggested standards are inherently objective, while the "guidelines" are inherently ambiguous and open to interpretation resulting in not only tons of unnecessary conflict but systemic abuse.
Interesting how you are allowed to interpret your own ratings how you like, but my rating for a SINGLE USER you take objection with is some how out of line even though it falls well within your currently accepted standard under the guidelines. The point that you think this single user's rating is some how impugning my character is fucking laughable. Hey tell me, where is that user now? Oh right he was just operating a fly by night "charity" and is long gone.