I just don't think he should be rewarded until he's proven he can take no for an answer.
I'm new and not familiar with all of his feats, nor the content of his character, but think this logic is perhaps flawed.
Not that I think the farms should take itself seriously, but the basis of reward in my mind is exemplary action outside the context of human character or motivation.
To examine feats within the context of the character of the individual who accomplished them would invite there to be no rewards of any kind, from the perspective that all humans are flawed in some way, often times hypocrites.
Would the heroic actions of a soldier on the battlefield be less heroic to find that he had killed somebody drunk driving back home?
Are the accomplishments of historical figures to be weighed against the judgement of their moral fiber by modern standards?
One might find that a lot of influential people are by nature eccentric or flawed due to the necessity of risk-taking or innovative behavior in the face of adversity.
You reward and remember actions, not men.
Being new, I don't really have any sense of what size or quality of action would merit a banner.
I don't think he really did that much.
He does seem a bit focused on his own character though, I agree.