@icopress went for it and pulled the trigger.
I am not sure that was the appropriate action to take here.
If you check julerz12's trust lists, the only user that doesn't trust him is icopress. Probably there were other incidents that led icopress to such conclusions. But as for the negative tag, it will not affect the decision of the managers in any way, in case julerz12 decides to participate in the subscription company. It's just that all managers are already aware of what happened, and one way or another, only they decide whether to accept this user or not. It has already been said many times that a negative mark can easily change in the event of a positive outcome. In the end, this is only a minimum compared to what those who actually lost money experienced. After all, everyone will agree that other people's money can never be compared with their own. And julerz12 lost other people's money, which one hurts more?
I think that
The only thing stopping me from Supporting the Flag is this:
I've seen an escrow involved in someone losing $50,000, and everyone still trusts him.
I don't think OP, who actually posted the problem by himself, deserves a harsher treatment than the other guy.this reasoning also makes sense. If we want to keep a slight sense of fairness and equality, than this doesn't quite add up.
I would at least given him a couple of days to come forward with a reimbursement plan. You could leave a neutral tag and still turn it into red when after a week or two there is zero or irrelevant action being taken. And still, a manager tagging a manager comes with a bitter taste especially when nobody else of the more neutral DT members decided to pull the trigger. @icopress isn't any bad as a manager because he left a red tag, not at all. In fact he does a good job, but the red tag after less than half a day(?) of the incident comes across as biased.