Yeah;  this is a big deal.  If it was unintended you you to be back on DT TEC.... well;  no worries... shit happens.    I have to keep in mind Theymos is the one up on the pedestal (as he was put and is)....   He has that power to set status quo..... and we should respect his words.  Shit rolls down hill;  so, this is a no-brainer in the land of logic.

If vod as well, has reason to believe you should not be on DT because of the negatives in dealing with you or is certain you are not to be on DT as per Theymos;  well... I see his intentions in giving you that flag.

Does it fit the verbatim use of the trust flags?  not exactly how I personally interpret them as to be used.
Does it return things to the status quo?  yes.
Do I agree with it based on these facts?  sadly yes... because we lack a better system to readjust for now and i need to read further to want to change status quo.

Tec, I hope you understand my reasoning.  I know you do good things, I have seen you do them.  Don't let all of this phase you; its just water under a bridge. (shit, look at my recent neg trust flag;  it was a retalitory flag, wherein mine was based on evidence of a dev likely to not follow through and be associated with a group whom ran off with investments and never produced.   It happens to us all;  If I ever make a bad call: Ill come eat some crow with you)

I'm gonna try and shut my mouth at this point as I don't wanna do any speculation.... that does nobody any good, so ill try and keep out of it for now, since I think I have seen logical reasoning.

I hope my words meant something.


*edit*  TECSHARE;  I see your response.   This pretty much explains a lot since there is no burden of proof needed for theymos saying you should not be on DT for [reasons above], as well as others agreeing it was so and with the decision.
I will look into that link and chase it back as far as I can.  Thank you.

Vod being excluded presently, and you not?

Interesting.  

Also interesting that you mention a trust system abuse issue.

hmmm.....  it will take me a while to browse your pre 2014 (that thread start) post history to put it into context.  I speed read it and i see your point.   Makes me wanna read back and put context to their reasoning.

I appreciate your patience with me.... and hope you understand my thought process as I am laying it out.


Its hard to sus things out sometimes; don't want to chance misleading myself.

*edit#2:   "Just because you think a person not answering as to how they are making a profit;  doesn't mean you should abuse a system of power to punish them for your belief."  This is the synopsis of your DT exclusion I can gather in the fewest words by browsing many pages and trying to figure out where friendly memes/banter and seriousness begin.

You are historically trustworthy,  yes.

You are historically honest, yes... you even admitting to your mistake goes in hand with this TEC.   I see this; trust me I do....  but the weight they put on abuse of a position of power (unlike the recent impeachment articles forgive my political poke of a pun), I believe was correct as its a zero tolerance kind of thing in my book.  If I delegate some power to someone and if they break that trust and abuse it...   Its end of the line for that power for them IRL.
I respect you dude...   but... yeah I see now.  
Its all in all rough cookie;  as for right now's edition;  was it technically a misuse of trust to..... shit....

Recently I have given neg feedback associated with supporting datum...  

*JK resumes his silence understanding more of the scope of the situation*