For pretext of what I will say following; I know that the use of the trust system seems to be something widely agreed on, however I am someone who looks at things as they are, excluding the politics and general consensus, and making my own judgements
That's okay. It's how the Trust system is designed. But it will also mean your feedback won't show up by default.
I don't think anyone can certainly say who's feedback will and won't show up by default in the future (you can't be talking about the present as my feedback never has been/was default). Your opinion on my rationale is different to others as the trust system is subjective, as is how much you trust someone (especially online). The future is not static or known either. The only thing that is static/known is the formula used to make up everyone's trust score.
For pretext of what I will say following; I know that the use of the trust system seems to be something widely agreed on, however I am someone who looks at things as they are, excluding the politics and general consensus, and making my own judgements
t.
So it's really up to you: do you want your feedback to mean something to the majority of users, or do you want to use your own interpretation of the Trust system?
I believe I'm using it in a way that is reasonable, and helpful, and takes into account "trade risk" by considering the outlook of someones future actions based on their (proven and referenced) misdeeds (both financial and non-financial) in the past. If my rationale (explained mostly in last post) and referenced feedback is not valued by the community, that's nature. As long as I'm not being unreasonable then it's fine by me (I don't believe that my use of the trust system to-date has been unreasonable).