One thing that needs to be voiced though, is a possibility that the account is connected to several accounts, which leads to ban evasion. I've asked the individual in question about this matter and he's yet to reply me, but suppose that the final verdict is that he's indeed connected to those accounts and thus evading forum's ban, then the negative tag should be placed, but that's the only reason of the negative tag; ban evasion, not buying or receiving accounts.
If you critically re-examine the above statement, you will discover that some statements are augmenting the previous ones while some parts are contradictory.
If an account changed hands buy mutal understanding (account sales), neutral tag is OK for that.
But if the transferred account has issues with ban evasion, a negative tag is needed.
What if the person to whom the account was transferred to has never involved in ban evasion, but the account he/she bought has now brought evasion to them which may even affect their different innocent account. I believe someone understands what I meant.
But yes, I agree that if it's the case, then it should be tagged because if we get lenient on it, prolific ban evader will start using that excuses to get away from the situation, that they bought that connected account while factually the account never moves hand and he's just a prolific evader. So far, though, I have yet to meet an accusation of multi-account and ban evasion where the defendant said he's innocent because his account is bought.
Cool, at first attempt, I approached your submissions part by part, but now I have to approach it holistically.
I agree that inherited ban evasion should stand, else chronic evaders will use bought account as excuse for evasion. Such inherited bans should be regarded as bad investments.
But if the transferred account has issues with ban evasion, a negative tag is needed.
Why ban evasion need to receive negative feedback? ban evasion has no business with scam.
Ban evasion and spam are moderators job, not DT job. DT members only help the moderators to expose account related with previous banned account and reporting spam posts. The punishment of ban evader account is banned, not negative feedback.
[...]
I am seriously curious and interested about this. I gave a quick stroll at other threads and saw that you're not the only one standing to this opinion. I am somewhat agreed that it's mod's job to ban them, but shouldn't --or couldn't-- the DT leave a tag on that user before mods can take action and nuked the account to prevent the account from doing further harm to the forum?
Without connecting deep, it appears that DT strengths has nothing/little to do with reporting ban evasion. The best to do is to report to moderators and if the moderators have approached the case and dismiss same as a bad report. The ban evader should be acquitted without a tag.
If I happen to be a campaign manager, I will not fail to hire a particular user because of a note of ban evasion. I would just conclude that the DT member is being over desirous to unseat that particular account.