Don't you think that all this situation is weird, because all "victims" is russians with noob accounts?
May be your point is right, and it's possible to may not be also. Not every people create an account in bitcointalk, a crypto trader doesn't necessarily refer to a bitcointalk user. They only think of creating an account only to report the scam event. So, basically, you can't decide the truthfulness of the event by judging through the user rank only.Isn't tagging them also a way of warning them? I mean those tags can be removed or changed to neutral anytime the issue with that account is resolved. In this case, withdrawing from the signature campaign.
Just too much work for the DT member to tag them and then change them to neutral or removed for hundreds of participants.SO just give warning and let them decide their own fate after that permanently.You don't tag when you warned, red tagging is different by definition " You think that trading with this person is high-risk", don't deviate from the real meaning. Maybe tagging as neutral would be appropriate based on its meaning "Other comments.".
If we can use the tagging system properly, there would be no complains, DT's misusing the trust system leads to misleading forum members as that trust is visible.
TLDR: INjustice
Make me a script and I'll tag them all
.EDIT; Fwiw, ever since flags were introduced ratings became more like post-it notes so getting a negative barely matters anymore. Don't tell me they do because I can show you a few good examples. If people remove their application I remove the neg, it is that simple (:
It matters to signature campaigners the most as it's part of the rules that having a negative rating from a DT would not make them qualify to join.
If that does not matter, you can remove that in your rule.
(1) And before I forget, you didn't answer to my reply, why not tag sportsbet.io and bitcasino also?
(2) red trusting participants because " You think that trading with this person is high-risk"?