some objectivity and accountability will return free speech to the board and ensure scammers can not brand honest members with a scam tag.
I disagree with the idea of giving out negatives for contrasting beliefs. I'm assuming that's what you're describing: am I correct?
the implications you mention are likely mitigated to a large extent with a couple of simple tweaks.
If you can elaborate on your ideas then I would be glad to discuss the ramifications and consequential effects of your tweaks. I enjoy playing devil's advocate in all cases and believe that no idea begins in its final state: it must be polished thoroughly.
rushing to judgement is at times potentially useful, but for the judgement to stand it must be accompanied by a strong case. Those failing to provide after a sensible time frame are removed from DT if they do not remove the red tag.
I can agree with that. Sometimes, potentially compromised accounts or incredibly likely scams (that have yet to be proven) should be given an initial block as to safeguard the general public from malicious entities.