Are you saying they're being too strict?

I'm not an expert on sig campaigns, but imo (which could change) they would benefit from being way more heavy handed with the bans.  If you're going to get paid to post, don't post shit. (not saying this to anyone in particular) If you post shit, even if it's only semi-shit, you get neg rep and youre done.  It's not like there's any shortage of sig campaign members to choose from, right?  (or is there?)  

Right now way too much of the overall sig campaign money is going to a few shit posters with a ton of accounts.  

I think those are both very good reasons to add them to the list.

It's not black listing them from the forum.  Just from getting paid to post.

If they are only making the post bc they're in a signature campaign, I have no sympathy.

The language doesn't matter, as long as they aren't shit at it.

And yeah, constructive too.

It doesn't make sense to you why people who sign up for a signature campaign in a language they can barely speak get blacklisted for making short posts that are barely legible? 

You've missed my point. The way that posts get counted is not really a rule (i.e. X characters minimum). I'm talking more about, e.g. 'no alts', 'posting in specified sections' and so on. One should consciously join a campaign and follow all of its rules.

No, it is not. It is our list, ergo determined by our rules. You forgot to add a 'IMO' at the end of that sentence. Just because you disagree with it, that doesn't make it universally wrong. Anyhow, this is why there is a short review period. In case that someone was really bothered by getting blacklisted, they could just send their campaign manager a PM (which would be a sign of a genuine person). However, usually they rush and apply into other campaigns (which is not a good sign).

---

It seems this thread is ripe for a self-moderated replacement.

Nope, no such plans in place, i suggested something like this earlier in the thread

I think things would be worse if they held a similar "standard" as you do

SMAS idea is great, but this topic is pointless. You guys should do this somewhere private or lock/unlock this topic with only updates of spammers, I don't know why did you let this become discussion?

I don't want to be a bitch, but look at this topic for example: https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1694484.0

Now, let see. OP asked question, joksim replied, than op ask another question and mrcash replied and I added few more things.

This is interesting, user27 quote first post and answer to move topic to scam accusation section, than U2 comes and say OP should move topic to scam accusation topic, even c/p my post, than bitmax come with nonsense to discuss scam accusation in marketplace, than thegodfather came to tell to move post to scam board, than Kotone came to say he has to move topic to scam accusation board, than numanoid come to say they are signature spammers, than ardiprabowo came to say he should move his topic to scam accusation.  

Thanks god OP listens to numanoid and he locked topic. (as i said this is only example)

Oh, i found another one https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=558513 bitmixer signature did someone read his posts?

Oh read this one too https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1684589.msg16945085#msg16945085  and https://bt.irlbtc.com/view/1684589.msg16994098#msg16994098 who is running bitsler signature campaign anyway   revo is obviously multiacc spammer?

And back to OP, as I said, SMAS is great thing, but you need moderators to do their job too, to lock threads when they are solved and to mute people for several days when they are spamming!

Cheers!

I think if everyone who makes a post that's obvious spam like marlboroza's example should be blacklisted permanently from sig campaigns.

Yeah, they will bitch and cry bloody murder from tons of alt accounts.  But there will be less spam.

Zero tolerance - without notice.