Fair enough.. it was perhaps an extreme way of presenting his objection.

But surely  he will be allowed to replace some of the red trust within the new conditions you have set.

It was the manner/ format and extreme nature of presenting his message that got him banned ... am I correct?

If he was to only leave a max of 5 then he would be allowed to do so?

I have not examined his cased deeply but it seems to me that you can get red trust for anything including enjoying the taste of a lemon or even telling the truth about a person lying previously. So the only possible way to abuse the system at this point seems to be spamming it as you have just said.

Can you consider adding some criteria for red trust that must be met so we can prevent persons who feel they have been treated unfairly being a little to enthusiastic in highlighting their plight?

I mean surely you can understand that if you mention you like lemons or you tell the truth that someone has lied previously (yet they continue to call you a liar over and over and will not provide evidence to demonstrate this) after spending years building an account here just to get a big red flashing sign that you are a scammer it will evoke an extreme reaction?

Imagine further the very people permitted to ruin your account are proven untrustworthy beyond doubt in the first place.

You must see this is not going to work out and will get worse as more and more persons feel (rightly so in many cases) that people proven as liars or to be using sock puppets to sig spam racist trolling are then allowed to cast out punishment on their "suspicions" untrustworthy related behaviour.

Why not introduce some criteria to DT that prevents the entire place going crazy. Bans will not even work against people that feel enraged by injustice. I see it all getting worse.