Before you make your assumptions, you should read my post and understand it. I've nowhere "complained" that you have distrusted me, I've just pointed it out that the list of people distrusting me is very special and if you want be there, feel free to do it. I could not care less if you distrusted me or not. 

And as expected, you deleted my post in your self-moderated censorship post.

---

That is wrong, the moderator approved my report and deleted your post. Then, you complained about it using your habitual spam-wall rants. 

---

My point of view for trust feedbacks is: people should start reading feedbacks instead of trusting red, green or black numbers. That's why I'm always linking a reference, writing a text how much BTC was involved and then, people should make their own conclusion, if the person is trustworthy enough for the sort of deal they are about to do.
Instead of spoon-feeding people we should focus on making trust more visible on different sections that new users know about trust, can view each feedback and draw their own conclusions. A positive feedback is not "I'm endorsing this user blindly", it's an "I've done action xy and would do it again / it went well".

Maybe you should care more about your feedbacks where several negative feedbacks and also positive feedbacks could be criticised as well.

"Wer im Glasshaus sitzt, sollte nicht mit Steinen werfen"
~"Don't throw bricks, when you live in a glass house"

---

Ok:

Feels nice to join this group of morons? 


https://loyce.club/trust/2020-11-28_Sat_18.56h/2143453.html

It's ok if / if not.
No hard feelings. 

---

Pictures are better.