I feel that Lauda does a lot more good than harm for the forum and that is why I keep him in my trust list.
I'm not going to be the only person that's disappointed by this being the voiced criteria and reasoning for this. I don't disagree with the statement, but I disagree that this should be the criteria for keeping them on your list.
There are plenty of people that do more good than harm that still do a tremendous amount of harm, so much so that it would be very dangerous to use this reasoning.
You should keep them on your trust if you feel that they are very unlikely to do any meaningful damage to the forum in a way that violates or abuses the responsibility that comes along with DT; plus there should be significant benefit for their addition.
This reminds me of Dave Chapelle's bit about Bill Cosby; "He saves more than he rapes!"
The significant benefit is that he tags scammers and helps keep that under control. Will he sometimes mess up with a rating?? most likely, but if/when he does he just needs to make it right. The trust system is not perfect, but no one can come up with a better one so it is what it is. Obviously other members of DT1 agree he is valuable otherwise he would not be back on.