Offcourse, the fact that most campaigns require a minimum amount of posts does not help the spam-factor...
If i would live in a poor part of the world, and needed this money to pay for stuff... I would do anything to get the minimum required post count, by all means...
Lately, i try to join campaigns that have no minimum post count (i'd rather have a maximum post count than a minimum)
I do not see the point in that. Pay the users for the posts that they've did. I'm all up for the maximum weekly number of posts being lower than 100. A manager can not complain about the work that he/she has to go through. Nobody is forcing him/her to do the said job.
But what do you determine as low quality post ? As you well know a signature campaign is about getting your name out there. As to about quality of post what is that exactly ? Like saying that you should wipe you ass after you go for a dump. Everything runs on advertising these days and the reason you have these campaigns is that the company will become a recognised name when it comes to whatever product that they are promoting. Take Primedice for instance they didn't have all this bs when it came to posting look how successful they are now. It only shows with the stringent guidelines in order to post that the company is not at all solvent.
You can't define as rule that would apply to all posts. It's just not possible. Analogy: how could you make a rule that would say if art A = bad, or B = bad? You can not make a single rule that would determine this for all pieces of art that have been made/are going to made. With posts it's pretty much the same. I don't understand people that are unable to perceive a good post from a bad one though. Each post is assessed on a case by case basis and gets handled accordingly.
Campaign managers should pay Carra23 to give them lessons.