Quote from: DarkStar_ on March 26, 2018, 02:39:17 AM

I know many DT members (ie Vod) will remove their ratings depending on the severity if the user has contributed afterwards.

The ratings you describe apply primarily to scam loan requests by new users, whose purpose serves to warn against sending money to a brand new user. In the cases of a Red Tag removal, this threat no longer exists. Further, no one in this thread has a similar policy, some will actively ignore requests to remove Red Tags, and after misreading my concerns, The Pharmacist said he will keep his Red tags on indefinitely, so I don't think this is an apt comparison.

(If a brand new user asks for a loan in their very first post, a reasonable person will think this person is a scammer, once this person activity participates for a few months without any scam attempts, then it might be reasonable to say this person is no longer a scammer).

Quote from: DarkStar_ on March 26, 2018, 02:39:17 AM

I've sold accounts in the past, however I've stopped, and I think I've proved that I'm reasonable trustworthy.
http://archive.is/e70Gw

Quote from: DarkStar_ on March 26, 2018, 02:58:04 AM

Quote from: whistleblower2 on March 26, 2018, 02:50:22 AM

This type of activity is either an indication that someone is a scammer, or it isn't. There really is not a lot of gritty area here.

I disagree. Would a now Staff member who sold accounts be more or less trustworthy than some random who was selling accounts? Negative trust means that you do not trust the person, not necessarily that they scammed someone.

Negative trust actually means "You were scammed or you strongly believe that this person is a scammer", so you should be a scammer, either because you scammed someone, you tried to scam someone, or you are planning on (trying to) scam someone in the future, the fact that someone is suspicious of you doesn't cut it. Unless I am missing something, the rational behind the Red Tags by those listed in my OP is that the act of buying, selling, bidding on, inquiring on, or whatever, forum accounts makes you someone who will plan on (trying to) scam someone (to try to help someone scam someone) in the future.

If you accept the premise described above, then existing trust does not matter. You are describing an environment in which someone who steals money after building up a lot of trust is given a pass because they have existing reputation....in other words, someone who pulls a long con is given a pass because they have reputation and are allowed to continue to scam. That logic is simply irrational.

My OP is implying that Blazed is in the center of a trust farming ring that selectively Red Tags users that are not a part of the ring, including accounts controlled by those within the ring, and intended to be sold by the ring. Your argument is that Blazed's trust list is part of a good 'ole boys club, which would not be as bad, but would still not be good for the community.

Maybe there needs to be a discussion if Red Tagging is appropriate in these situations if there are many instances in which users have engaged in this business activity, but have turned out to not be a scammer. I would welcome this discussion and might give my own input.