@OP: Please don't interpret what's below in terms of the specific case you've mentioned. Really, I'm just responding to TSC's general remark.
Personally I think DT members need to be aggressive on this forum; if they weren't, all we'd have is an enormous lineup of scam victims and other assorted fires that needed to be put out. You know that old saying "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure"? It's absolutely relevant to bitcointalk and scam busting/prevention.
I'm basically on the opposite end of the spectrum when it comes to this issue (as in, I think "predictive" scam-busting, and "aggressive" tagging is more harmful to the community than helpful, by a wide margin).
The thing is, I've never, not even once, been "saved" from anything by the trust system. (And assuming that I'm an OK choice for a "representative" user, then the thoughts that follow from an earnest appraisal like that are worth reflecting on, IMO.)
I honestly think that under the guise of protecting others, some fraction of the DT membership simply
enjoys being empowered to attenuate behaviors that they
personally find upsetting (while either ignoring or maybe being unaware of the collateral damage being caused by their imperfect senses, and the knock-on effects being produced by them not really thinking much beyond their own private scales of justice). In my experience, almost all people (and especially sticklers) like to engage in activities that make them
feel better, without paying much attention to what's actually being accomplished.
Slightly OT: While I don't have a big sample size, I can say that
every person that I've seriously regretted crossing paths with, and also had the misfortune to get to know really well, has been possessed of not only an
untrusting mind, which is ordinary in this day and age, but also a deeply
suspicious one (as in, they model others after themselves, which is sometimes natural, and because they're often up to something shitty, they believe everyone else must be, too). Conversely, the people I tend to admire almost always have the opposite outlook, and believe that most humans are fundamentally good, and that they should be treated well and given the benefit of the doubt until any evidence of wrongdoing has become completely clear-cut (and even then, they're sometimes still inclined toward leniency).
While I'm on the subject of over-policing being a contributing factor to Bitcointalk having such infertile soil, I may as well share a related thought I once put in a PM:
It's fun to play at how you'd run things if only you could, but the actual reality of watching your not-all-the-way-thought-out decisions causing serious, real-life problems for other human beings is sobering stuff. For example, I really hate the low SNR on Bitcointalk, and I naturally lean a little elitist, so my unrestrained knee-jerk reaction is to do/approve things that would slowly get rid of all the forum-clogging shitbirds, but, Bitcoin is for everyone... I think it follows that Bitcointalk should be, too. Viewed through that lens, the forum is something like a garden, and the head admin's job is to make sure not to heavy-handedly shape it into the garden that they would like, but to encourage the growth and survival of as many different "species" as possible (and quickly, though still carefully, tend to damaging effects, like rose mites or some shit -- I don't know gardening).