However if you or anyone else does not support it specifically because who the OP is, or what line of business he is in, the trust system becomes entirely worthless
I wrote this a while ago:
Since the increase in DT-members, I've already noticed an increase in red tags. I can imagine a new user easily feels threatened, and I can also imagine many users don't mean bad. I'm not talking about the obvious and less obvious scammers that deserve red trust (and continue scamming with the next account), I'm talking about the "gray" cases in between.
I'd hate to see the supply of real new users dry up because of this. When someone isn't a clear scammer, don't they deserve the benefit of the doubt?
I'd like to add to this topic: before leaving feedback, ask yourself if your feedback makes the forum better, and (if applicable) is it worth destroying someone's reputation?
In this case, I don't think a tag or flag on bob123's account would make this forum a better place and I don't think it's worth destroying his account.
And this case doesn't make me feel like I would need a warning if I would do business with bob123.
I cant imagine how anyone could argue that holding someone accountable for their promises would not make the forum a better place.
The argument I am hearing from you is that bob is a good poster therefore him breaking a promise should be excused. This will make the forum a much worse place because it sends a clear message that you have a license to scam others if you steal from an unpopular person.