If you risked a large amount of money when trading with someone then you obviously needed to trust them enough to take such a risk. If you take risk with someone then there is no way around the fact that you trust them.

Giving trust because of risk taken is one reason why giving a trust rating is appropriate, however is not the only reason why one is appropriate.

Giving a trust rating when zero is risked, especially for very small transactions makes no sense because you did not need to trust them to engage in such trades.

There are other non-trading reasons to give trust feedback, e.g. you witness someone engaging in trustworthy behavior and/or scammy behavior and/or witness them scamming and/or them admitting to scamming (as in your case).

I personally find it hard to believe that someone could possibly be thickheaded enough to seriously not see this conclusion based on my posts and the only reasonable conclusion as to the reason for you comments would be that you are trying to stir up trouble

The longest 'time based' ban that I have heard of is 60 days, so I would add an additional 30 days to that. So go away for 90 days, and ask nicely. Maybe you will be given a different answer. 

If only someone had issued a warning about the OP. Then maybe the OP wouldn't have been able to scam in the way that he did......oh wait someone did

Being that you have little trade history and you are looking to trade with only trusted members, it would probably be better if you sent first (if someone has significant enough trust/trade history) or you use escrow. Either way I think it is safe to say that it would not be safe to send first to you.

Escrows like to get additional feedback so they can show additional vouches so they can better sell their service. Also even if you have a high trust rating if all of your trades were from a long time ago and you have not traded at all for a long time then some may question your continued integrity. It is not so much about needing to show as being trusted, it is getting additional feedback regarding their ability to be trusted and their professionalism.

I wouldn't ever force, or attempt to force someone to give a positive rating, or attempt to coerce them into removing a negative rating (for example by sending retaliatory negative feedback) however my standard closing after I finish an escrow deal is to ask for positive trust, and/or a review on my escrow thread and/or a tip if they feel everything went smoothly, and I won't follow up if none have been received. Nevertheless the above example is an example of when positive trust should be given, especially if it was for that large of an amount.   

Moderators get an email (or they can if their settings are set up a certain way) that notifies them of the report and at least one of the email addresses the email is "from" is the email address attached to your account.

Just to let anyone considering doing business with this person that this is an alt of puzzel.me who has extorted people in the past and who has scammed multiple users in the past.

I would personally not sell an account to this person.

You probably shouldn't post its identity as that decreases its value to a potential buyer. If you give its stats (rough activity level, rough number of posts, trust rating, rough registration date, ect) then a potential buyer will have sufficient information for how much the account is worth.

https://bitcointalk.org/seclog.php

It looks like someone reset the password on  rony_90 twice earlier  today (lol) so you might want to double check to make sure you can still access the account. (It was reset via security question). To zero out the security question you will need to place a curser in the question field and hit the backspace button until you are certain there is nothing in the field (including invisible characters) and then repeat the process for the answer. It is possible that only invisible characters are present in both fields so it appears to you that nothing is there when there really is.

The account was not hacked via the password. According to the security log its password was reset via its secret question. I believe that the answer to the secret question will not be displayed so you need to be sure to "zero out" the secret question and the answer when securing an account.

Either you added a weak answer to the secret question, puzzel.me had a weak answer and you did not remove it or puzzel.me had an answer on the secret question, you did not remove it and hacked their account back.

If you ask me to hold 5 BTC for you for safekeeping for a few weeks then at the end of the transaction it would be appropriate for you to leave a positive feedback for me. However if I were to leave positive feedback for you in that deal then it would be little more then me selling trust which is not something that should be done.

If no money is ever risked on someone then previous trades would show very little about how trustworthy that person is.

I would disagree with this. If one person took on zero risk in a transaction then it would be less appropriate to leave trust feedback while if money was risked then a positive rating is almost certainly appropriate. Even if only one trade was done then it would be appropriate to leave trust if money was risked while this would not be the case if no money was risked.

Anyone specifically trading with someone just for the trust that comes with the trade should not receive positive trust and is highly suspicious in my book.

We don't actually have a trade feedback system; the reputation system that we use on the forum is a trust feedback system.

You are welcome to ask someone for positive trust after a trade however I think it would not be appropriate to expect trust after a trade, especially after a small trade or in cases when zero risk is taken.

Many people who get negative trust complain that I have never traded with them and should remove my negative trust. This is an invalid argument. 

this would probably be a bad idea. It would be better to use an on-forum escrow service.

For clarification, this bid is accepted.   

Auction ends in 2 days at 4:00 PM eastern time (US).

I actually charge 1% with a .0075 BTC minimum. The minimum charge works out to be less then $2 worth of bitcoin, and IMO is well worth it as it will result in your money being protected

Even prior to being trusted and when I was using others' escrow services, I would always ensure that the escrow was compensated for their time as that is the right thing to do.

I will more likely then not receive an offer from my current signature campaign for me to remain with them, however I wish to maximize my earnings potential and listen to bids from as high of a number of people as possible.

I have $15 worth of PayPal that I would be willing to sell for .062 BTC

I would be curious to see what happens if he were to make enough posts to become a full member.

There is no reason why you should be accepting a business's deposits into your personal bank account. At best they are operating questionable accounting practices and laundering money through your bank account, more likely they are trying to scam you.

Anytime something sounds too good to be true it probably is.

If you take advantage of this "opportunity" there is a 99%+ chance of you ending up loosing money.

Do you have any idea why a company would trust some random person with their money in a way you are describing?