Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 06:11:48 AM

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1682304.0;all
Someone was being critical of Lauda regarding when Lauda decides to leave negative ratings that was withdrawn when Lauda removed the negative rating against that person. The change of heart about Lauda was so strong that the person went as far as to say that Lauda was doing more good than harm.

The topic was started because Lauda left negative trust on an account in that user's possession. Therefore, to begin with this does not fit the criteria that I asked for.

Quote from: minifrij on January 04, 2017, 02:59:44 AM

...when there was a dispute with Lauda not about trust feedback...

In addition, I believe that your timeline is incorrect. The topic was changed to 'WITHDRAWN' which then resulted in Lauda removing their feedback, as there was nothing there to base it on.

Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 06:11:48 AM

Lauda had traded negative ratings with, I believe was BG4, the rating against BG4 was something along the lines of claiming that BG4 was "immature". Eventually both ratings were seemingly removed at around the same time.

Once again, this doesn't fit the criteria. It also seems that this was sorted similarly to their first dealing with defcon, by an external party coming in and mediating. Is this not the way that trust disputes are meant to be solved, or is it just because Lauda is Lauda?

Quote from: Quickseller on January 04, 2017, 06:11:48 AM

The rating defcon23 received from Lauda seems to have been removed and reapplied multiple times after defcon23 has taken different stances on Lauda's behavior

defcon and Lauda have had disputes several times over several different things, which would explain the trust ratings being changed multiple times. However, as far as I remember the majority of these disputes (including the first and latest) were to do with trust feedback left by Lauda, making it once again invalid to the criteria I asked for.

So you have managed to provide one instance where a dispute with Lauda wasn't about trust feedback sent by them (despite me asking for instances where this wasn't the case), said instance being already resolved by Lauda admitting they were in the wrong. Do you have anything else?