What about the DT members who have screeds and screeds of nonsense retaliatory feedback. Are they going to be expected to respond to each and every one, pointing out that it is unfounded nonsense. And if they don't post a response to each one, does that make these feedbacks seem more legitimate? "Look, user X never denied the fact I called them a scammer, therefore it must be true."
I wouldn't lose any sleep over that.
but isn't this like making everyone a DT member on their own trust page? if we have an accused scammer , he will be given the same privileges as the member who left him the feedback, this will render many tags useless, a newbie sees user A calling user B a scammer , user B goes no you are the scammer , user A's feedback becomes almost useless.
... or that.
If someone got to the point where they're actually reading and paying attention to the feedback then I'm going to assume they're smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff. Otherwise even the current trusted/untrusted/retaliatory ratings would confuse them so no big difference here.
I like the OP's idea but there are some technical details that would need to be worked out, e.g. what happens when rating is deleted? If that deletes the response as well then it's open to abuse. If not, then that creates other problems.