[...]
Okay. I don't want to create chaos here. Everyone has their own mind setup and different opinion. If you believe stealing from a casino is right and we cannot ask him to return. Don't support the flag. it's over.
It looks like we are started with the wrong footing here. Just to be clear, again, NO, I didn't believe what he did is right, as I multiple times have stated, he cheated. If it worth something, I've tagged him with negative trust, although it wouldn't bear significant effect to the community, just like how it'll be with your flag.
The point that I want to propose to you is that the path you're chasing --namely tagging gero2021 with type-2 flag-- is rather useless, just like what you state here, and if we revisited
theymos's original plan for flags,
[...] I assume this guy has another Good ranked Bitcointalk account. And he doesn't want to lose his reputation or don't want to get a Red Trust. He created this account to ruin Paradice's Reputation and Intentionally gain something from Paradice.
I think that several of the problems with Trust were because three different goals were being jammed into one system:
1. Getting a general idea of someone's trade history and trustworthiness in one convenient location, sort of like reviews on sites like EBay.
2. Warning newbies/guests who don't know how to research properly about high-risk people.
3. Deterring scams by creating a cost to scamming (ie. you'll "lose" a veteran account).
To improve this, I've split up these use-cases:
Use-case #1 is the old trust system, but I made the descriptions on the rating types a bit more general and removed the concept of a trust score. The numbers are now "distinct positive raters / distinct neutral raters / distinct negative raters". You should give these ratings for anything which you think would impact someone's willingness to trade with the person, but you should not use trust ratings to attack a person's opinions or otherwise talk about things which would not be relevant to reasonable prospective traders.
Use-cases 2 and 3 will be handled by a new system of flags. You can create a flag using a link on a person's trust page [...]
Like I said previously and what you've acknowledged above, the account is a newly created account, a puppet account, alt-account, whatever you call them. It is lacking the "cost" that theymos said on point number 3.
Suppose that your flag is active, it'll bear null impact to the betterment of gambling community, because the tagged account has no value to lose. They'll just create new account --on this forum pr on other gambling sites-- if they feel they need to. It'll be a different case, though, if you can flush the main account which probably have a higher rank, or --like I said multiple times-- share something more permanent and techhie that other casinos could put him umder the ban list. IP address? MAC? Again, I'm not a tech savvy, but I've stumbled several times on vases where IP is used to identify someone and tie/negate thr scammes alt accounts.