Negative trust? Absolutely. [2]
[2] Negative trust was not weakened so that I would need stronger reasons to tag people after all.
Not sure what that [2] means?
The requirements for negative ratings are much weaker since the last changes theymos made. If somebody was tagged for some deceptive behavior before, then they can be tagged now for the same deceptive behavior on a smaller scale / lesser deception.
So if someone attempts to enroll one account, gets rejected, then attempts to enroll another account - that calls for negative trust? Assuming the campaign doesn't allow alt accounts.
Most likely, yes. This is very deceptive behavior. The person behind the account is being rejected, not his imaginary identities nor tens nor hundreds of identities. If one, despite the rejection, tries to infiltrate the service provider again with another mask then they are actively trying to get around the rejection - thus deception, thus untrustworthy. Does this make sense? This is from my perspective as an (ex) campaign manager not as a DT member.