All that remains is to cite the nicknames of players who have changed their position to a positive one towards someone.

Well, here's an example of a shift in a positive direction.:) (Nickname - Dirty Player).

It is also worth noting the wonderful Catherine, who has graced our male company. Definitely, she is someone to understand and forgive:D

But there are plenty of examples of the opposite,

Yes. Plenty. Both in that topic and in life in general.
And it makes me sad. Just as it does you.
But still, this is not a reason for generalizing judgments, such as:
- "You can't trust anyone"
- "All men are scoundrels"
- "Everyone plays the 'Guess Who' game"

"...I believe that you can only trust a person in the most extreme case."

There is, by the way, another curious stereotype that I haven't mentioned.
However, it is also quite rare. And not just rare, but stands apart from all other classes of stereotypes, as it is a consequence of a special psychological type. Nevertheless, in Japanese, there is even a special term to denote this category of people.
Personally, I really like this type. At least because it makes concepts such as "offense," "betrayal," and, in fact, the term "trust" itself meaningless. This stereotype can be called "Probabilistic." A character who always thinks only in terms of probabilities is interesting in itself. But even more interesting to me are the strong analogies that can be traced here.
1. Ordinary stereotypes work by analogy with a semiconductor, which can only take one of two possible positions (Yes/No, I believe/I don't believe, Will let down/Will not let down, Will help in trouble/Will not help). In fact, all quarrels, offenses, etc., are actually not a mismatch of our expectations (that is, the position of our internal semiconductor that we have set in advance).
2. There is a fundamentally different approach, and those who adhere to the "Probabilistic" stereotype do not play "Guess Who." The strongest analogy from physics that suggests itself here is the quantum state.
Quantum physicists also do not play "Guess Who," and the question "Is Schrödinger's cat alive or dead?" is meaningless to them.
Before the "measurement" takes place, the cat is in both states simultaneously.
A person with a probabilistic stereotype behaves in exactly the same way. Until the "measurement" of the contactor takes place, he considers both possibilities and calmly perceives the object as a mixture of probabilities. And after the fact of "measurement," such a person simply calmly records the result of the "measurement" that has occurred.
Learning to behave in this "quantum" way consciously is extremely difficult. Most likely, you have to be born with such quantum brains. At least, my own attempts cannot be called completely successful.:smile32: