About a year ago lightlord sent me a PM asking to reconsider the negative tag, and mentioned that he would launch a sig campaign with escrow, therefore ensuring participants are always paid.
He sent it to me too. And I'd say to The Skeptical Chemist as well.
I think I recall a PM from him and may in fact still have it somewhere in my inbox.
There's a lot of rationalization going on here from members who probably wouldn't think twice about handing out a negative if this crap happened with a member who didn't have the (extremely damaged) reputation lightlord does. Just my opinion here, but he ought to be judged by his actions the same as any other person would. He's established a pattern of not giving a shit about people, and it really doesn't matter what may or may not be going on in his personal life. That's all speculation anyway and a waste of brainpower and time to come up with hypothetical scenarios and such. People should be warned about him; that's how we've always used the trust system, no?
He was indeed late in his dues it can’t be denied but he always cleared it when he saw fit but I don’t think he has intention of scamming people. I don’t think a flag or negative trust is necessary in this case but if you think otherwise then nothing is stopping you from painting him red.