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.
With obvious scammers or those undeniably placing people at great direct financial risk then maybe yes. Perhaps some examples and details could bring you both closer together. For example is an objective and solid warning this member is requesting information that renders members financially vulnerable and open to scamming leaving much room for subjectivity. So long as there is a credible and direct financial threat that can be independently verfied, then there is nothing wrong with a statement or warning saying that. That is reducing the subjectivity and frivolous ratings to strike a nice balance between mitigating those insoluble problems and increasing the reliability, accuracy and credibility of pre-emptive warnings.
His point I suspect is that those insoluble problems I mentioned that are very damaging to the forum are more net negative for the forum as a whole than the positives of pre emotive flagging. I expect that he is factoring in that some innocent people will be flagged at some point.
However, I think if people are even innocently placing members at great financial risk by requiring priv keys or as you say are conducting real, credible , directly financially dangerous behaviors then it would be sensible to provide a warning if the system can permit that without creating those insoluble problems. I mean if I was latter was shown to be a genuine mistake or lack of knowledge people can withdraw the support for the flag.
Those insoluble problems are very serious though, and if you think about each one carefully they do enable scamming at perhaps a more serious and less obvious level. Also scamming from higher levels does have more leverage.
The insoluble problems, all the infighting can be largely mitigated and I think pre-emptive warnings can certainly remain in a less dangerous, more reliable? and more accurate way.
Perhaps just some sensible consideration and willingness to consider each other's arguments would bring an optimal solution for everyone.
I personally will always view free speech as the most valuable thing that requires protection here. I do think everyone should be reasonably responsible for their own financial security online. However, both can be reasonably accommodated within a sensible design. It would be optimal until a better design that stood up to scrutiny was proposed.