If you want to talk in terms of analogies, think of the S/A Helpers as detectives. They are gathering evidence against the accused so they can be put them up for review, which can be thought of as a court case. Then you have two levels of judgement; an S/A Moderator and an Admin. The S/A Moderator reviews the gathered evidence and will then lock that user if there is sufficient evidence, then put forth a request to an Admin for further review to potentially appoint the Scammer tag.

Your suggestion is understandable, for there have been instances in the past where users have scammed multiple times and don't have enough evidence against them. While your idea of marking the user as a threat is a good thought, just think about what a S/A thread against another user does to one's reputation. Typically, a thread that, according to the one who was scammed, has sufficient evidence of the scam, will still result in the community labeling the accused as a scammer and basically ostracizing them as a natural result; essentially already accomplishing what you are suggesting. But again, your suggestion would certainly have some use, however, the SA functions off innocence until proven guilty.

The frustation is understandable and your idea has a good basis, but the current system is strict with the fact that one must have proper evidence against them for them to be locked and appointed a Scammer tag. They are not just going to lock and tag users as Scammers unless there is 100% evidence backing up that claim. There are key pieces of evidence that make or break a SA thread, and if a SA thread is lacking such evidence then the user will not be locked and tagged. It's surely annoying and can easily prompt for you to want to take premature action to ensure nothing happens during the duration of the thread, but they simply cannot do anything without sufficient evidence.

Also, you are right, this has already been considered in the past and reviewed by a S/A Moderator. You can read more about it here: http://forums.d2jsp.org/topic.php?t=64522413&f=258. The suggestion is very similar, if not, identical to yours.

My no vote is based on my understanding of the Scammer Accusation forum, and knowledge of it's conventions.



As aforesaid, proper evidence must be collected in order to take any action on the accused. I get that you think something needs to be done prematurely, but users are innocent until proven guilty (with proper evidence) in the SA forum.