Regarding my recent question about a traumatising situation, what advise you would provide for newbie/ novice/ beginner researchers to spot an ineligible or corrupt Ph.D. advisor? Especially when they have good recommendations (probably from other corrupt teachers), good number of their former students doing academic jobs, high demand to get into the lab (especially among people with incredibly high postgraduate exam scores), prolific number of publication?
UPDATE: to make this question not look like a list (based upon feedback), I have changed a large part of it, asking how a student will decide when they should absolutely abandone a supervisor when the entire system suggests not to. (Don't expect to find exceptions, many of the respectable chairs like university heads are member of active political parties, unemployment and competition is skyrocketing and students are pressing the stockholm button by all means)
I gone through following 'hints' that I didn't realised to be indicating something deeper.
The supervisor/s do not notice you. You feel unheared.
The supervisor/s say a lot of good or promising words that doesn't match their action.
The supervisor/s set such terms and conditions so that you cannot change labs.
The supervisor/s are paranoiacally concerned abot other researchers' ethics (or present oneself as if own work being stollen all the time). Or other signs of jealousy.
You are not treated as equals but as subordinates. You are expected to get affection or even pity, but never a hardcore technical discussion with 2way and equality.