Your logic doesn't make sense. It won't stop spamming at all. It actually encourages it. Should we not encourage people getting into meaningful conversations but instead just pay them to make one spam comment in as many different threads as they can because that's what will happen? Clamp down on actual spammers not just people who get into a conversation or discussion in a thread.
I believe in prevention being better than cure but your logic is that you need to stop spammers rather than preventing them from spamming. So well it's like wait till they spam and then ban them but in this way, the campaign's reputation suffers saying that it has a lot of spammers.
No it isn't. If you read what I said you would see I suggested doing both. When people sign up check their posts - if they're crap they get denied straight away. Then keep an eye on them throughout the campaign and if they start spamming warn or kick them off.
Not exactly sure if a signature gets benefited by having the same user posting over 20-30 replies in the same thread. For you and me, the meaning of having an interesting conversation might be different.
Are you saying each thread just needs one signature impression then advertising objective achieved? Not at all. The ads actually work better when there's several, just don't pay people to make poor posts, pay them to make quality ones and not the opposite as you're suggesting.
.