Shall I take that as you ceding that point then since you refuse to actually address the argument in favor of repeated straw man arguments?
No. You've made a claim that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers causes significant negative effects, such as allowing major scammers to be lost in "signal noise". I've asked repeatedly for evidence of that claim, which you are refusing to provide. You can't just make unsubstantiated claims with no proof and then place the onus on other people to debunk them. Isn't that the entire point of your opening post in this thread?
It is almost like you could apply this standard to anyone here by comparing their own trust inclusions and exclusions to the default trust.
Can't speak for anyone else, but I have a lower score on my own trust list than I do on default trust.
It is irrefutable that as there is an increase in frivolous ratings the tagging metric is diluted and devalued.
I don't disagree with that, and let me restate again that "frivolous tags given for personal retribution" as you put it have no place in the trust system. What I do disagree with is TECSHARE's suggestion and that pre-emptively tagging obvious scammers results in more negatives than positives.