Re: Lauda and hilariousandco -> Proven to Abuse Trust (Corrupt + Poisonous)
In cases like these, it is upon the accused to provide proof (which you have failed). Let me simplify why:
Okay, you are an African, black female girl. Provide proof you are not. No, it is never upon the accused to provide proof. Is that how court works? No, so why would it work like that here.
This does nothing. Them not leaving you a rating won't make me remove mine.
No, it will do something.
IP logs are not concrete proof of anything.
I'm pretty sure IP logs can show if the hacker logged in from a remote location or not, right? Or the only way to prove it was hacked is to "sign a message", am I right? Sign a message this, sign a message that. If you can't, you're hacked.
- Lauda 2017
You just called the second highest ranking staff member an "imbecile" and ask for lower ranking staff members to decide. I can see that intelligence is not your strong suite. 
If someone is ignorant enough to leave a negative trust without any proof, they surely are an "imbecile". Funny enough, there is actually proof for me to call you guys imbeciles, but there is no proof for you to call me anything.