Sounds like a reasonble idea, a lot of the spam post are easy to spot, very short, not constructive at all towards the conversation, and they never read the whole thead, some i think would be lucky to even read the last post.
Signature campaigns can be a great way to earn a small bit of extra btc but it does bring out the scammers.
IMO campaigns should have sign up limits and also they should pick who they want more often and not just take anyone.
The last 2 campaigns i have been i was PM'd asking if i wanted to join, they were always better paying too.
Yes, that's what I said. There should be guidelines, restrictions and such. That's the best solution. Removing signatures, or banning campaigns is illogical. Why punish everyone because of spammers?
There needs to be either a: 1) Effective way of spotting and banning spammers (useless without an increase in activity required in the first ranks, and no newbie restrictions); 2) Force tougher policies on the campaign managers; if they don't follow them their campaign gets banned.
This could be easily implemented with reasonable requirements. The first time that I've joined a campaign was about 8 months after my discovery of the forum and 4-5 months after joining it (I think). I was unaware at that time, I was even banned, but even then there was less spam than today, even though off-topic was being bombarded by posts.
I am sure their post quality will greatly increase and they will "learn" a big lesson.
Maybe yes, maybe not. But i think that it's a great way to warn a user, especially if is active a lot: in this case, indipendently from his signature, a ban can seriusly harass communication in other forum business (for example private sales, escrowing, etc...)
Actually no they won't. Some spammers are really persistent, even beyond your imagination. They actually keep buying accounts to continue their spamming spree. Banning them doesn't help as they make a lot of accounts at once and make all of them advance over time.