I don't think it is wrong to distrust those that distrust you if you know that you are trustworthy.
Clearly their judgement is impaired and they no longer are suitable for default trust.
You want those that demonstrate a good judge of character ?

I don't believe that this is gaming the system.

You are supporting tecshare?
You feel objective standards are unarguably the way to go?
Those threads seem to support that argument but your tone does not. 

That may not be sexual deviance where you are from...
Reviewing the history of this member leads to some very nasty child sex abuse filth.

There is difference between an angel and a disgusting shit poster that is plastering child sex dirt over this forum.

Are you suggesting that plagiarists and those spraying child sex abuse on this forum should be paid?
I notice you have a thread yourself that does not paint a very pretty picture. Perhaps those plastering the forum with racist hate speech are more in tune with those spewing child sex abuse and plagiarism.
I can see why some object to such members being sponsored to spread this dirt over the forum.

These are grounds for a signature ban as much as plagiarism. 

Having just looked into this individual I can certainly see why others may object to such a member being paid to post what is clearly disturbing and revolting filth.
There should be a line and child sex abuse claims should be grounds for a signature ban.

I wonder how his sponsor would feel to know they are paying for this hateful and disgusting nastiness?
Perhaps a thread to challenge them for doing so ?

I have just reviewed this thread about you and your obsession with sexual deviance. Yout clear obsession with child sex abuse may be condoned by the likes of Vod  but I find it revolting. You should certainly not be getting paid to post that filth on this forum.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5136759.0

It appears to me that lauda is only supported by members with considerable dirt to be found in their own histories here.
If lauda is not given a very lengthy signature ban then it will serve only to demonstrate there are some clear double standards being imposed at an admin level. I see no reason not to ban members that have considerable and consistent events in their past that demonstrate the pose a clear and direct financial threat to other members.

I am Spartacus

I am also a non conformist
When discussing scammers then I'm afraid non scammers may get a mention ?
Non scammer is a term for someone that has not scammed.
What possible other prefix would you use there?
Please do not make such silly claims based on such flimsy conspiratorial poop.
What is the obsession with every member being cryptohunter?
Were that the case it makes absolutely no difference.
The points that I am making are those which you need to address .
 A non scammer is clearly a member who's history is scam free. I have seen this description used by others here.
That is not the case with the member lauda. It is not the case for you either.
If you believe such claims invalidate the statements I have made, you need to pay closer attention
I expected more from a non account seller.
I hope lauda is perm banned due to being an undeniable proven scammer, but will accept deliberate and sneaky plagiarism as a reason. I'm shocked a forum would permit scammers to continue attempting to scam other members once they have been identified.
Whatever the outcome it will remain as an observable event.
This will be the benchmark for plagiarism cases.
Previously banned several times, documented scamming, demoted from mod for extortion,documented racism, and now deliberate and sneaky patchwork plagiarism

Let's observe. 

You are spreading lies now. The plagiarism in this case is clearly a patchwork attempt which is clearly an obfuscation attempt and not a simple forgetting to place a reference.
The lie here is that the scam evidence against lauda is not rock solid. I have looked through it and gone back to the orignal 2014 threads. There is no doubt this member lauda was attempting to scam investors. Please do not dispute this without presenting your clear case. A " you are wrong" doesn't cut it. Again it makes you look very untrustworthy.
You can not have scammers that have been subsequently been banned several times having less punishment than those that have not been so net negative.

The extortion attempt was real. They simply forced the victim to say it was not when they got caught
Theymos removed lauda from mod over this so stop lying.
It looks like you need to be watched extremely closely.
If you are going to accurately assess a members net value then you can not allow liars like steamtyme to pollute this process.
Scamming should be impossible to earn your way back from. The financially dangerous must be removed.
Lauda was just here claiming that a 2yr sig ban was not sufficient punishment and a perm ban was the way to go.
Let lauda have his way.

You are discussing this in terms of a " normal-" member that has not been previously banned. Also this member lauda has been found guilty of scamming. I have reviewed the evidence and it is air tight.

Scammers should be banned.
Plagiarist scammers ... well you do the math.

Lauda has himself advocated for plagiarist to be banned. Let him live by his own standards.

The above poster is spreading lies.

Anyone have a script to find these?

Lauda should be banned.
The other thread demonstrated some very crafty patchwork style plagiarism.
The excuse given of a word for word memorized mistake is quite ridiculous.
Lauda also has a scammer thread open describing in detail how he was deliberately telling lies to entice investors under a false premise. It is in the reputation section.

Thank you.

So, legendary members do not need merits. It appears that merit was implemented to prevent poor quality accounts ranking up.
IOW to ensure members can only rank up their accounts if other members perceive their posts to provide some kind of value " good post"

So, if you have ranked up to legendary there is no need for merit.

Why does a legendary member need merit?

The suggestion will be very unpopular. In this thread there are numerous DT members that are wearing the signatures.
I can see where wearing a signature could create a conflict of interest.
A need to earn from a signature could be an avenue to exploit.

I do not see bringing a reminder and extra awareness to the contagious nature of this virus to members as a negative.
Very clever, thoughtful and interesting.
As a brand new member of this community it is though encouraging to note that even the chief can be criticized ( although on this occasion i don't feel the criticism is that useful).

Wash those hands, and consider carefully those you choose to engage with.