Back on topic. I strongly agree with the initial poster, in that the admin or even the board owner should intervene if there are instances where red trust is given out in a frivolous or vindictive manner.
No I disagree. The community needs to decide on these matters. If you feel DT has left you frivolous or unsubstantiated feedback, make your case. It's as simple as that, and the only way to shape the system to work for everyone. If people agree with what you say, it can be discussed with whoever left the feedback, and if people lose confidence in how they proceed, they just might get removed or excluded from enough lists to be removed from DT.
So without references or facts all that happens are these discussions that go around in circles.
I strongly agree with the initial poster, in that the admin or even the board owner should intervene if there are instances where red trust is given out in a frivolous or vindictive manner.
Admin doesn't need to intervene, the DT community has been doing a good job policing themselves. Stick around long enough and you'll see members being dropped from DT2 when suspected of distributing tags for frivolous or vindictive reasons. It's happened at least a couple of times in recent months.
Happened to me, got off shift found I had been tagged by a new DT. Went to bed, woke up and they had been removed based on their feedback standards being petty. So I firmly believe the system can be used and made to work for everyone, but we need people to actually participate.
That would be nice. In an ideal world then yes. With a large proportion of the community having their say then yes again. In our current situation it is quite clear that if a prominent DT1 decides to give red trust for something not directly related to scamming, then admin needs to be called to make a judgement and set a precedent. There are not sufficient guidelines to warrant DT1's causing rifts with other DT1's at this early stage.
This is in relation to frivolous and retributive vindictive red trust that is not related to scamming.
A sample size of 1 incident (in your case) and a handful of persons apparently representing " the community" is not sufficient to dispense with the need of admin guidance and intervention in these initial stages. I see no reason for admin to avoid giving clear guidance on matters where DT's are giving red trust for non scamming incidents if there is any doubt whatsoever.
It appears that increasing the number of DT1 is the only way forward if admin level intervention is to be avoided altogether. You seem to be advocating a very centralized system that also manages to avoid any accountability. I would remind you though that the number of real individuals is likely less than the number of accounts on DT1.
The accusation that people are using alternative accounts, to voice their honest opinions for fear of reprisal, is actually recognition that there is an issue here.
) 
