<
>
Spamming is against the rules, and these users should have their posts deleted or accounts banned. Being a spammer doesn't inherently make one untrustworthy.
The negative tag with the comment "spammer and will return to neutral if the user is proven to change" I think does not automatically make that user untrustworthy. This tag is only to make them deterrent so they want to change their bad habits into members of a good community.
I disagree on this here too. If a person is a spammer, and since spamming will normally lead to low content value, and therefore be against the rules, then he should be reported and let the mods evaluate and deal with him accordingly.
Tagging should be essentially commerce related, and we cannot turn it into a sort of self-made pseudo-mod-like feature to tag/pardon for spam, each with his own personal criteria.
Even Neutral for this or anything like it are not my piece of cake:
<
>Trust scores and in many cases are misused. Being their conceptual nature that of rating commercial TXs that derive Trust upon the person dealt with, there are a tremendous amount of cases where the trust is built either a bunch of very small commercial valued TXs, or things which are unrelated. Look at my profile for example: All my positive Trust scores are not really commerce relates, and are therefore conceptually wrong (*), although Im trustworthy as hell IRL.
(*) They should probably be neutral, although I personally do not like the use of neutral for something that, again, is not commerce related. Using a feature for commerce related stuff on positive/negative values, but conceptually allowing for other con commercial neutral rating call for confusion, and it would be better to have a system to rate Trust for commerce and "Trust" (or whatever we want to call it) for anything else, as two different entities.