Users can be banned for breaking forum rules but still have valid trust
Lets see, banned user:
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=trust;u=79546Nothing since 2014. in trust. Of course, most trust is without reference.
Just because you manufacture suspicion about a user doesn't make him "obviously hacked".
So why don't you counter
negative feedback then? Or you don't trust user which you have in your trust list?
The fair and sensible solution is if ALL DT1 members agree to have to publicly state yes or no to whether each member on their trust list has financially motivated wrong doing in their past. Since this is the primary concern of default trust - to protect people financially. Not to shelter them from other peoples opinions on the strength and fighting capability of homosexuals. Or any other non direct examples of clear financially motivated wrong doing.
If you are demanding he publicly explain yes or no in relation to his trust list includes. THEN YOU ALL SHOULD ALSO.
DO YOU AGREE TO DO SO? YES OR NO
Or he has to explain publicly but you do not?
Bring a big comparison thread so we the readers can see if his includes list looks more financially high risk to the board or whether REALLY his list looks to clearly be less RISKY and provide more protection than the rest of DT1.
These double standards that OTHERS must explain their actions but WE refuse to explain our own actions must be stamped out.