@doomad
I think you need to think it over further. If you were eddie would you rather pressure was applied to the trust abuser to remove the red trust, or rather some other DT's that confirm it is invalid use of red trust to counter the abusive red trust? or as you seem to be suggesting , sit around waiting for years for enough people to decide (according to your reasoning) that his bad decisions outweigh his good? We do not follow with that anyway. If there is even ONE clear instance of the trust system being used to silence others for merely disagreeing with your views (that you should be able to make money escrowing for scams) then you need to be removed instantly. There is not place inside the trust system for those that will seek to abuse the privilege (even one time).
I think I see the problem here. Nuance isn't one of your strong suits, is it? Everything has to be black and white in order for you to find it acceptable. The slightest shade of murky and off the handle you fly. It's pretty clear you wanted a list of posts in this thread by various users saying "
Lauda is wrong because x/y/z", because you want some sort of unilateral intervention. But that's not how trust is designed to work. Pressure is acceptable, but it's never going to be as clear-cut as an automatic, instant removal from DT (unless the offence is egregious enough to warrant a ban, or theymos decides to step in, that is). It clearly doesn't matter to you that you have the option to exclude Lauda AND exclude everyone who includes Lauda, which, as if by magic, changes that trusted feedback into untrusted. You can quite literally build a trust network of your very own. But nope, that's not enough for you. You want to overrule everyone and force them all to see it exactly the same way you do. No dissenting viewpoints. No ifs, buts or maybes.
Sorry, but life doesn't work that way. Find some coping mechanisms or something.
Each person still gets to make their own judgement calls and some of those people are still choosing to include Lauda, despite the fact this isn't the first controversy they've been embroiled in. Based on the guidelines that have been issued by theymos, that particular rating that triggered you is inappropriate. But you are not judge, jury and executioner when it comes to what qualifies as "abuse" of the trust system. It's not up to you to declare who suddenly has to go just because you don't like something they did. It's currently unfair to eddie13 and that's unfortunate. But the alternative, where an unsuspecting user who doesn't have a custom trust list might fall victim to a scam because the warning feedback for the perpetrator is no longer trusted, becomes a very real possibility. And if multiple victims are scammed, that's arguably far worse than a pissy comment on eddie13's page that has already been countered twice.
//EDIT: Three counters now.