Less decentralized, of course anyone is allowed to give a negative tag, just like what you do. But, if people think you're leaving an incorrect tag, other users are allowed to distrust you too. So, be wise with your action.
yahoo62278 used the word "abuse", thereby this does not indicate to me that it is allowed. It is not clear to me who does the allowing and how could it then possibly be decentralized at all? Where can I see a list of "allowed tags"?
Of course I would not trust the author of this thread with anything. This part of the thread indicates that negative trust is appropriate, other parts of that thread and statements by other members here indicate the contrary. So which one is it? Is a person able to decide what constitutes trustworthiness themselves or do they have to obey a preset list of trustworthiness rules that are imposed by others? If I am not allowed to tag him, explain why and help also with the following question if possible.
To make it simple, trustworthiness in this case are mostly talking about money. When someone spread incorrect information, it has no relation with money, hence it doesn't deserve to get red tag.
How so? I do not trust anyone who is spamming and would never engage with such a person in any monetary transaction. They are cheating both the reader's time and in this case also the campaign finances. Does this mean that there has to be a monetary transaction before the negative tag is given?