You are probably just trying to make a point with the statement, but, asking for any financial incentive to have feedback removed is too close to extortion for me.
Extortion does not come with fair warning. I gave fair warning - terms not to violate, and varying penalties depending on the term violated.
Would you say this government sign in front of a school: "Don't murder here, if you do you will be put in prison for life, unless you pay a fine of 1 billion dollars to each of your murder victims' families." is "too close to extortion"?
--snip--
May be irrelevant now, as I just saw philipma1957's post, but I saw this more like: a government sign in front of a school: "Don't walk in the grass or you will be expelled and a reference added to your student record which will blacklist you from other schools/colleges/etc. You can come back to school but in order to remove the reference on your student record, you will need to pay 20,000 dollars." This would be backed with a zero tolerance policy and no 2nd chances are offered, the only way to ever get your record corrected after walking on the grass is to pay the fee. To make this example a little more accurate to how I saw this, the fee & sign is created & enforced by 1 person at the school.
Inapt comparison. A person doesn't suffer significant economic loss from someone walking normally, wearing normal footwear, on unsecured, normal, grass that they do not personally own or have to maintain at their own significant expense.
Advocating exchanges = advocating economic suicide. Late payment=dissuading others from paying on time, if at all. Those are significant losses.
Ggddtt didn't violate either of those terms, though, so they can only complain about a negative trust rating that will never be removed, as the term broken is part of what I strongly believe is Ggddtt's "scam" of pretending to be dyslexic/illiterate in order to sabotage my auction & gain sympathy from the anti-terms lynch mob.
P.S. Fixed misquote of my post edited ~7 minutes before your reply.