IMO the only reason they removed him in the first place is because they had just removed me from the default trust list for basically the same situation and they didn't want to look like even bigger hypocrites. This is why they are letting him back on because it was just a show to make it look like that actually enforce the rules for everyone.
TS for example, tried for months to damage my credibility with libel. In my mind, that makes him untrustworthy and I left the appropriate trust.
So as we can see here,
Vod's general reasoning on libel and neg trust is functionally indistinguishable from mine.
TECSHARE: If your case is truly what I bolded, then copy and paste the following* to make it absolutely clear that you've received unequal treatment:
Vod says he got libeled. Vod leaves negative trust on libelers. Vod wasn't removed from default trust (DT) for that.
TheButterZone says he got libeled. TheButterZone left 1 negative trust on 1 libeler using, unknowingly at the time, basically the same reasoning as Vod. He was removed from DT T2 for that, and restored only after downgrading it to a neutral. Vod hasn't similarly had to convert his negs on libelers to neutrals to stay in DT.
I, TECSHARE got libeled. I left negative trust on a libeler, using basically the same reasoning as Vod. I was removed from DT (T2?) for that despite Vod not being removed for the same thing.
I petition for myself, and all who leave negative trust on libelers, to receive equal consideration and treatment as Vod.
ETA: T1s dooglus and tomatocage appear to be Vod's T2 sponsors, so that's who I would petition first. It only appears that Vod is allowed to neg trust libelers
ad infinitum without costing his T2, because of them.