I am afraid that most people who participated in Cloud mining signature campaigns back in the day, would get a red flag status now that it is clear that most of those Cloud mining projects were a Ponzi scheme.
I cannot see how someone could be held responsible, if they did not know that the project that they supported in their signature, were a scam.
It is something different, if it was confirmed that the project was a scam and that the member continued to participate in that signature/bounty campaign.
I think DT won't tag them when a project turns out to be a scam but it wasn't clear to see, even not for investigation experts. Red tags are mainly given for confirmed scams like when someone would adverstise for Bitconnect for example or other scams.
I can imagine that DT will also only tag accounts joining the campaign after they posted a warning in the thread.
We can not held responsible if a project turns out to be a scam afterwards, almost the entire forum would be red.
I have one question in mind.
Is it considerable if someone's been away for a week not touching his account and within that timeframe the signature campaign he's been wearing is being accused as scammer. After getting back from his account he received a negative trust from a DT member, can he prove it that he's been away around that time and too late to know that the campaign he joined is scam?
For this problem I can imagine that DT will only tag people applying for the signature after they announced the scam. No post of the account in the signature after scam was announced = no red tag. Or like CryptopreneurBrainboss said to refer to last posts of the account.
- You’ll receive almost no Merit anymore. The number of people meriting your posts will decrease a lot.
This probably doesn't make much sense actually. Merits aren't based on the trust of a particular user. They are purely based on how good, witty, constrictive and helpful the posts are. Meriting a person by judging his account is not right. Merits aren't meant for that. They are introduced to highlight good posts from the ordinary redundant shit prevailing all over the forum. Though, I am not completely contradicting your statement but Merits and Trust and independent. There are many instances where a highly negative trusted user has got decent merits.
A Merit Source or someone who is spending his limited sMerit can be well aware which account will receive his Merit and most of them will decide to give the Merit to an account who was not involved in shady activities. Or at least I would do it and send my Merit accordingly. The Merit Sources know most of the accounts who have a red tag.
Just ask yourself - where you would rather send your limited sMerit.
Trust is another thing additional to your post history. If your post history is filled with bounty reports it's harder to get a Merit.
Maybe my words were a bit too strong and "almost no merit" is a bit exaggerated. At least a significant lower number of Merit will be received compared if your account isn't red. I don't know an example, where the received Merit didn't decrease after a red tag.
- Your arguments in discussions will be also traded with caution.
No, not all the boards displays Trust of a user. Only Bitcoin and Altcoin Marketplace boards displays trust. Others board doesn't actually need to display trust as there isn't any trade going on!
I don't get your point. What do you mean by
traded with caution DT knows all the scammers here, no need to hide trust ratings on some sections.
Trading words with caution means to be sceptical of the arguments of the person. There are also some accounts tagged for things to be discussed and they are honest people but a red tag is very often tied to shady activities like accounts-sales, scams, Merit-trading etc etc. And in my opinion 95% of all tagged accounts should be also traded with caution in discussions.