Also, remember that a scammer tag has a much higher burden of evidence than a civil case.
Certainly does. The main factors are: the blurry role of the staff (moderator or juge d'instruction?), the unpredictable process (judge/chief prosecutor/court scryer suddenly decides to back out of a case, leaving the situation in limbo; mediator person confronted with basic principles of jurisprudence declares that not being informed in such will have to ignore them) and the completely ad-hoc nature of claims, relief available, procedure followed and so forth.
This isn't a dig at you personally, nor is it a dig at any other moderator, the site and so forth. But it is meant to convey that complexity in disputes will only increase in time, and again: if you do it at all you have to do it all the time. At the very least some strategic decision to never do it, or else some guidelines to do it consistently and better would be in order.
Future customers?!
If there was evidence Goat was making a significant effort to work out a redemption scheme with GLBSE, I'd agree with you. But without that, I think a lot of people will give GLBSE the benefit of the doubt. But it's certainly a warning bell, especially since GLBSE doesn't seem to be making any effort to improve the redemption scheme. No matter what happens, the decision to delist caused significant harm to GLBSE's customers, and there's no evidence NEFARIO even considered that. However, if they respond to this by announcing delisting criteria, escalation rules, and a procedure for a sensible redemption after delisting, that would go a long way to recovering.
I'm just looking at the fact a couple assets delist/dissolve a day now. Some of them weren't even in distress.