This is not going to do very much. A manager does not need to be "not banned" to do their job as a manager, and they could potentially do their job in its entirety off the forum without even disclosing their account.
Fair point. How about blacklisting then, as explained in the post I linked to above. If YoBit don't clean up their act, then YoBit as an entity will be banned from advertising on the forum. I still think we should be handing out escalating bans to the individual spammers though.
I have long advocated for reports regarding damage done via individual company's signature campaigns in the form of number of bans issued, and posts deleted (and associated reasons).
I think this would work great with the blacklisting idea. If your campaign has x number of posts deleted for spam, or x number of users banned for spamming, in y number of days/weeks, you get a warning. Repeat offending companies or entities are blacklisted.
In order for a company to be blacklisted from advertising they would need to enroll in a signature subscription (with confirmation by the advertiser) service by the forum so to prevent someone from enrolling a bunch of accounts to wear a company's signature to create a bunch of shit posts and get the company banned from advertising.
The threshold for blacklisting from advertising on the forum would be very high. It currently takes a lot for a person to get banned, even temporally for having insubstantial posts with a paid signature, and bans are generally only handed out after a sustained negative behavior and after a number of warnings (often in the form of deleted posts) are given out. The time required to have someone blacklisted would likely be a minimum of multiple months so that a company can evaluate performance and take corrective action.
I do agree we should continue to punish spammers in the form of posting bans, and perhaps signature bans (and perhaps incrementally diminished signature abilities).
This is not going to do very much. A manager does not need to be "not banned" to do their job as a manager, and they could potentially do their job in its entirety off the forum without even disclosing their account.
Which is exactly what's happening here: something that I've feared. High-count low-effort campaigns that induce spam, hosted off-forum.
[/quote]I think this is one result of the long-term systemic abuse abuse of the trust system via the leaving of negative ratings for reasons other than someone reasonably being a scammer. There are a number of by all accounts, legitimately running businesses that have negative trust on bitcointalk, and do not have much to lose by running a signature campaign that spams this place up. Although in this case the rating may be
justified.
Plot twist, dude doesn't even have the required rank to join their campaign (he a member).
" results. 
