Think of it as "Drop-shipping" , while it could certainly create some logistical issues, it's not scammy per se, if the deal went smooth and then later on OP found out about his miner being shipped to another person, would he still call Crypto832 a scammer just for that reason? probably no. ~snip~
pointing out that he was a middleman without disclosing it in a negative feedback could potentially confuse the reader, IMO any point that does not relate to scam in itself should not be in a negative feedback, for example no point saying "member x is fat and he did not send me 2 btc for my 0.1 btc" , taking out the first part still shows that member x is a scammer, saying he is fat only does not indicate scam, so if the feed back consisted of only the below quoted part
I get what you are saying, but just because th eoverall feedback is negative doesn't mean that every drop ship reseller is scammy. In this instance it helps to paint the entire picture of their transaction and shows important details leading up to the scam. In your example you are using a persons physical appearance/qualities in this sort of instance it wouldn't be relevant. Now if the person had catfished somebody then laying in their physical attributed might make sense.
Guy was not honest in his dealings with me - sold the miner forward as a middle man without disclosing
Will you still think it's appropriate? if you answer No, then there really is not reason for it to be there in the first place -
TL;DR given the fact the many members don't really read the reference topic, I think it's always best to keep the feedback as accurate as possible.
If that's all that's in there and the reference thread only points to a topic with no scam then it would be appropriate for neutral. That takes me a bit off-topic. Like you said if people aren't going to follow through and read the reference thread shouldn't the feedback include as many details as possible, including the background details of the deal that allowed the scam to take place. We may just differ on what we consider important details and "fluff" but I do respect your stance.