No you said this...
What you're doing now seems to be aimed at reducing the amount of trust ratings available and only posting them after a scam has actually occurred. That doesn't sound like an improvement to me, it actually sounds like an impediment for due diligence.
This statement makes a direct implication that more ratings is desirable and would offer more protection.
I clearly said "due diligence". You're insinuating "protection".
It would not as I explained above. Furthermore your statement also implies that leaving arbitrary negative ratings will some how prevent scams.
I clearly said "due diligence". You're insinuating "prevent scams".
It will not. EVEN IF that was a valid argument, nothing is stopping anyone from leaving NEUTRAL ratings as a warning and making posts warning the forum in the appropriate "Reputation" or "Scam Accusation" subforums.
Your entire argument consists of "BUT THE SKY WILL FALL!", personal attacks, and thread derailing.
My argument consists of "more due diligence is better than less due diligence". Your inability of acknowledging different opinions is getting in the way of your reading comprehension.
Lots of frivolous red ratings. People go hey we aren't scammers. People learn red ratings don't always mean scammer. Red ratings now no longer useful warning. You understand?
I understand that this is your opinion. It would be nice to have facts supporting it, such as
examples of scammers who are scamming in the current system and would be prevented from scamming in your proposed system.
In summary if the ratings actually have an objective standard they will ACTUALLY SERVE THEIR PURPOSE not just be a constant source of conflict, confusion, and cover for even more theft. Any remaining disputes would be handled by the community as they already are currently by public review, only using the standard of objective evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws. I am not going to entertain your hypothetical bait to try to turn this into more interpersonal petty bickering. If you can't bring an argument against the logic itself then you have none.
Yet you completely avoided explaining how this would be enforced in practice. For example, I could say that it would be really great if people didn't scam at all but it would be a useless statement if I didn't offer any plausible way to achieve that.