I, personally, understand the rule for no naming, but ZERO tolerance for naming is overboard D:
A fact is a fact. You can't change that. I don't see a point in trying to censoring a name when we're stating a fact. Because yes, if someone did something, and if anyone wants to discuss it, this is a pretty free forum after all. If you can't discuss a fact without having to censor at least half of it, what's the point?
But there's a fine line between fact and just rage. Somewhere in the other topic Ralath said it was hard to distinguish, and yeah it is. Extra work for mods, like Omie said. If it gets too far, people will have to be constantly reminded. But having this rule apply to everything is not that fair. If someone DID scam another person, why would you hide the name? Why would you say he/she didn't scam? Why would you not try to warn others?
Overall, I agree with Omie. Why would you want to change a fact? You can stop when it turns to flames, but why censor something that is just purely a backed up fact?