He has clearly explained that he has attempted to locate members with minimal frivolous tagging.
I've never left a "frivolous" tag, but I appear to have ended up on his "Guild" hit list, presumably as a member of some conspiracy or other.
The fact that I decided (all on my own) to ~ him from my trust list and he immediately retaliated is obviously purely coincidence.
Like other posters here, I don't accept the pulled-out-of-someone's-ass assertion that trust tagging has a net negative effect on the forum, so yet another gang/conspiracy/whatever to include me in.
I leave feedback based on the mainly scam investigation stuff I post for one reason only: to help awareness levels among newbies.
I would like to stay on DT so that they see that, otherwise IDGAF.
Those concerns or views are largely irrelevant now. pre-emptive can be accommodated if that is what you are referring to. Which I expect it is, since nobody is claiming tagging proven scammers has any net negative aspect to it that is being scrutinized.
If it is true that you have never left a frivolous tag then you will have no need to object to the move being suggested. Your inclusion should be guaranteed. You would hardly notice the move.
I would be interested to hear your objections if you have any to the insoluble problems that tagging for non. scamming, attempting to scam or placing members in direct financial danger generates for members here.
Objections pulled out of an ass without supporting argument are as offensive as assertions.
If what you say is true then I see no reason for you to be excluded. Tecshare has shown willing to adapt to in information produced so the lists are clearly dynamic.
Nice to see strong support for either side with a meeting I the middle and sensible reasoned debate from many.
Thanks for creating this thread and guild tecshare. I see many current and future members. Time is on the side of those that seek transparent objective standards that ensure the fair consistent treatment of all members.