~snip~
I don't think it's necessary those 2 descriptions are exactly the opposite, but I see your point.
What's the opposite of "
You were scammed"? It would be "
You were not scammed", but that's clearly not reason enough to leave positive trust. "
You were not scammed after making a deal where the other person could have scam you" would be enough reason, and that's very similar to "
had a successful trade".
The opposite of "
you strongly believe that this person is a scammer" would be "
you strongly believe that this person is not a scammer" or "
you don't think this person will scam, even if given the chance". I'd like that description for positive trust, but in practice I don't think it's very different than "
You trust this person".
So I don't think the description for negative trust should change. The description for the positive trust could change; I consider that less important.
This is why I advocate for a standard of evidence of theft, violation of contractual agreement, or violation of applicable laws for leaving a negative rating.
So you think only people who have
already scammed deserve negative trust? I strongly disagree. I think trust should be used to make things harder for people who are
trying to scam too. Unfortunately that is subjective, but I don't see a better option.