From your post history it looks to be clearly signature post spam. Not spammy spam, but posts clearly made to increase earnings from a signature campaign.
Getting negative trust for doing it is pretty stupid and whoever Laura is they need to rethink their situation. A more suitable warning for others would be a neutral letting future campaign managers know that the user in question wouldn't be good for their campaign.
I personally don't see your negative trust on the forum itself as I have removed Default Trust from my trust list as the majority of them are full of shit.
Lauda is staff. I dont think a neutral rating would do anything. The user wouldnt have noticed and the next campaign might be years away, in the mean time the spam continues and nothing has changed. Its like you are suggesting to do nothing.
A good signature campaign manager will do their job and inspect every account applying for their campaign. If by 'doing nothing' you are referring to campaign managers doing nothing to ensure they are committed to the job they were hired for then sure. It shouldn't be difficult to click on someones trust and read a neutral feedback. That is if the campaign manager isn't just a lazy scammer suckering people in with lies and false security.
As for Laura being staff, is there a point in this being mentioned? I really couldn't care if she was the pope. I said what I said for a reason, someones position in a forum isn't going to change my view.