There's not enough time in the world to verify every single feedback for all users. If we do it for you, then we have to do it for everyone, then we might as well be back to handing out scammer tags and figuring out who's "guilty" or not.
You could do it for hero members, and put a limit on the amount of appeals. Simple things like this one would take 20 seconds of reading the trust left and you'd know it was fake.
But what happens when there is a conflict of interests? As it sits now, moderators can't delete their own feedback, friends of moderators can't have their feedback removed, etc. Theymos is the only one who can remove feedback, and even he understands the implications of what could happen if trust was selectively enforced. In an ideal world, people could leave whatever lies they wanted, but with no support or no proof, it would just reflect poorly upon them. There is no plausible way that I can think of, where we can have a moderated trust sytem, because then it is no longer a trust system, then its having trust in whoever is in charge of reviewing appeals. I believe a WOT like OTC is going to be added with the new forum software, which I suppose is the best option at the time being.
That is what the courts are for particularly when there is slander in dem dar hills.
