Quote from: The Pharmacist on June 29, 2017, 07:28:23 PM

I can tell you're a person who'll never admit to making a mistake

And you judge people based on just 1/2 posts?
What mistake are you talking about? Users were never banned for scamming. They were just tagged. This is what i said.
Scammers before being tagged by staff only vs scammers now being tagged by the community. Which one do you think is more efficient way to tag scammers with no chances of being biased?

Quote from: The Pharmacist on June 29, 2017, 07:28:23 PM

big avatar-positioned SCAMMER thing vs. ~~what we have today~~
some negative numbers marked red with a warning which clearly states to trade with extreme caution

If those words "trade with extreme caution" along with some negative red numbers right beside the word "TRUST" which is clickable and shows a list of offence executed by the user does not get your attention and makes you more alert, then you sir deserve to be scammed.

Quote from: The Pharmacist on June 29, 2017, 07:28:23 PM

This forum ought to ban scammers like every other reputable forum I know. Giving excuses as to why it's impractical is silly. It's not impossible, it just takes more work.

No one said it's impossible. It does take more work - more USELESS WORK. You ban a scammer, the scammer comes back with a new account or buys another account. Ban him, he comes back again. He will never stop. Making an account takes less than few minutes. So why waste precious time and resources banning him while you could utilize your time/resource doing something more productive, something more useful. Once again what you are suggesting is not an efficient thing to do. Using the ban hammer is not always the solution.

Quote from: The Pharmacist on June 29, 2017, 07:28:23 PM

then you're a fool.

does it bother you to have a fool as your intellectual superior? Think twice before calling someone a fool. It takes one to know one Roll Eyes

If i were to judge you based on your posts above i would say you think conventionally only.