I honestly do not have a strong opinion either way in this. However we can look at this in two ways in the context of your sent trust.

1) Lets say that hypothetically speaking, that you were trying to censor the Bitcoin network. Your sent negative trust ratings would clearly be an effort to cover up this fact that you were trying to censor the network. This would clearly be wrong.

2) Lets say that hypothetically speaking, you were in fact not trying to censor the Bitcoin network. Your sent negative trust ratings would clearly be an effort to censor your critics. This is the situation that you claim to be true. Don't you think it might be a better idea to post facts to your defense, rather then try to shut your critics up with what can only be interpreted as intimidation?

I honestly do not know a lot about the allegation that you were trying to censor the Bitcoin network, and for a long time, despite this allegation, I had a good level of respect for you and your work for Bitcoin and for Eligius. I honestly thought that it could have been true, however it was likely an ideological decision if it was true. However my discovery of these negative ratings caused me to loose a lot of respect for you. Regardless of how frivolous the claims against you are, you should never attempt to shut up your critics with intimidation. If there is no merit to the claims against you then the facts will prove your side of the story to be true.
You are correct to say that you have the right to give negative trust to whoever you wish, however if you want your trust ratings to be relied upon throughout the rest of the community, then your ratings, especially your negative ratings, should conform to the generally accepted practices of the community as a whole. If your trust ratings do not conform to the generally accepted community standards, then you will not remain to be reputable from a trust feedback standpoint. No, there are no written rules about what the community standards are, however I don't think the trust ratings in question conform with the community standards.
They both have the right to have whomever they wish to be on their trust list. However with that being said if they have people on their trust list who give ratings that do not conform with the generally accepted community standards, then they will not remain reputable and their trust list (and ratings) should not be relied upon by default.

As I mentioned previously, I am not saying that you did or did not try to censor the Bitcoin network. I am merely saying that you are trying to censor the people who are making the claim that you did. If this claim is in fact not true, then you should provide facts to back this up.

This is fairly obviously a throwaway account for somewhat obvious reasons

If anyone is curious, here is a little about me: I am not a party to this dispute, I may or may not be on level 2 Default Trust, many people have me on their trust list, I have dark green trust and I do not wish to have a negative rating from luke-jr. I also wish to maintain my reputation here on bitcointalk.org

User in question: luke-jr
Trust abuser's profile link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=3318
Level 1 DT users whose trust list the trust abuser is on: theymos and dserrano5
What happened: luke-jr has sent negative trust to both cooldgamer and lenny_ with a comment of:

Both of the above had sent luke-jr a negative rating being critical of what they think were him censoring bitcoin by enabling, by default settings that prevent certain transactions from confirming, notably ones from a certain gambling on-chain "website"

Regardless of if luke-jr is right or wrong in trying to censor the Bitcoin network, he is clearly trying to censor his critics with his negative trust ratings and his position on the DefaultTrust network.

As a result of the above, I believe that luke-jr should be removed from the DefaultTrust network

Regards
"should luke-jr be on DT?"

P.S. Please no comments about "quickseller" or "Vod", this is not the place for such complaints. There are plenty of other threads to complain about either of them

P.P.S. I locked the other thread and created this one in order to create a poll. The other thread can be moved to the trashcan.