I don't mind following the rules, but if the rules are ambiguous, unwritten, and arbitrarily enforced, then even if you want to operate within the system it is quite impossible. This inevitably leads to more chaos and conflict than approaching absolutely everything on a case by case basis.
I happen to agree with you here on all points, a rarity, eh?
This drama about negs being given for petty reasons could be obviated if only we had some strong guidance from up top. I really don't like it when DT members have to fight it out like this--it isn't that we all have to agree with one another, but it would be so fucking nice to be all on the same page about a few things.
I trust most of Lauda's feedbacks. The one I countered, I didn't agree with and I
rarely give a counter positive. I just did not think it was appropriate to neg a member because of a difference either in perspective of the facts or opinions. I'm pretty sure Lauda has a strong spine and can take a lot of BS that's thrown his/her way, so it was surprising when I saw that neg.
I don't want any more part of this drama than what I've already inserted myself into. And just because I countered a single feedback by Lauda doesn't mean I no longer trust Lauda as a scam buster and a member who generally stands up for forum issues. Since most of Lauda's feedbacks are spot on IMO, I'm keeping Lauda on my trust list. We tend to think alike on some of the negs we've left.