@yahoo62278, you remind me of one of the books I've ever read, NEUTRAL and NEGATIVE positions.
There are several points that I can conclude about this thread, but before I quote some understanding, I think that all the problems that might occur depend on the case that ensnare the user, Neutral in my opinion cannot be made permanent, except: As you said the evidence is valid in that case.
Points: 1
* But if the case can't prove anything.
I think we should refer to the basics of being neutral.
If a mediator cannot be neutral and take sides, the fight can even get worse because there are parties who feel aggrieved and are not being treated fairly, that's why being neutral is so important. As a result, not only did he get angry with the other members, but we also got involved in it because it was unfair to him. Being a middleman is not a joke.
In that it will be a consideration for DT members who have provided Neutral to other users, on the basis of no valid and stubborn evidence.
Points:2
If we refer to the basic attitude below.
Being neutral means you are mediating, but if you take sides or corner it means you are interfering and escalating the conflict
Of course Neutral is not needed, does the end of the story remain cornered and neutral can change to Negative.
Conclusion: For me, Neutral can be used against users who are accused with valid evidence and it depends on the case, and if it's a fraud case or one that can harm other people, of course, the negatives are also not in doubt.
However, if the case cannot be proven valid, do not act, wait for the evidence, the evidence collected will be followed up, Neutral or Negative.