I've only just tripped over this thread, so apologies if I'm repeating what's been said before.
This has been discussed in the past with the now defunct Scammer setting.
Scammer:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.2514705 http://archive.is/8hx0n| SCAMMER: | Manually applied by administration, regardless of post count and gets 5 red Xs under his name. |  |
It's very unlikely scammer tags will be ever be coming back. They were removed fairly recently for good reason. We don't need them anymore as the community policies itself with feedbacks and trust. And no, negative trust does not 'reset'. It can only be removed by the person who left it.
It would be better to add this tag for scammers since default trust can be manipulated by some green trust members !
It would be too much work for staff and mods generally don't get involved with scam accusations and is why it was removed. And what makes you think staff couldn't be manipulated the same way? It would be just too much fuss and people would be pestering mods to tag the hundreds of accounts that try scam here.
Name: mexxer u=64650
Posts: 129
Activity: 126
Position: Full Member
Date Registered: August 19, 2012, 05:40:49 PM
Last Active: July 08, 2014, 02:45:43 PM
had one of these Scammer flags and received negative trust (when they (the old scammer tags) were removed) from a DT user:
Before the trust system was added, I would manually add a SCAMMER tag to the accounts of people who were proven scammers, likely alts of scammers, and sometimes to hacked accounts (if they were being used for scamming). Because the trust system now exists, I will be removing all old scammer tags in about 7 days. If you still don't trust any of these people, you should manually give them negative trust.
The scammer tag also prevents people from deleting or editing their posts. If you suspect that any of these people will start deleting posts, you should make a note of their post count. I can restore any deleted or edited post if necessary.
Here's the list of people with scammer tags currently. People in bold will retain a hidden scammer tag so that they cannot delete their posts.
In a separate discussion, UIDs are being ❝Nuked❞ but not removed, so they appear to be ❝Brand New❞ with zero posts, so they can then be mistaken for a created, but not active account.
By ❝Nuking❞ and then going the one step further flagging them as ❝Banned❞ at least any of us who are investigating account farmers such as QuickSeller can at least know with certainty a UID we are looking at has been ❝Banned❞, not just ❝Nuked❞ much less ❝created, but not active❞
So, I guess the obvious question would be under what circumstances would an account be slapped with the ❝Banned❞ tag - ie being ❝Nuked❞ ?
