Okay....I understand the necessity to have a process to reduce spam by eliminating those who abuse the signature campaigns but isn't that the responsibility of each individual campaign manager?
Yes, however that has been shown to not work because:
1) Advertisers hire random fools to manage their campaigns just because they are cheap.
2) There are managers that do not care (at all).
3) Some services manage their own campaign.
The other alternatives are: Neg. rating both managers and service and/or banning them (per new signature campaign guidelines).
What is the goal of such a network? Will it end up being a method by which a single group of advertisers, with common interests and investments, have the ability to eliminate their competition via labeling other advertisers as "rogue" members and working together to label other advertisers' campaign members as spammers and coloring their competition's reputation with red for not falling in line?
To fight back spam as widely as possible. The involved managers usually handle most of their business on their own (e.g. I do not tell Lutpin what to do). What you are describing is a scenario where the members of SMAS are actively colluding to gain an advantage over the other campaigns, which is not the case.
Mob rules? I understand the necessity to eliminate spam; I don't understand the intent of building a centralized authority to accomplish that goal....it seems like a slippery slope.
3 people are neither a *mob* nor a *centralized authority*. I'd say that SMAS has been pretty effective so far. If the number of campaigns managed by the participating managers rises, then it will become even more effective.
Okay, I apologize if my line of questioning seems intrusive, but if each manager has the ability to reduce spam in their campaigns on an individual bases, what is the intent of the organization? Is it to gain the ability to eliminate "rogue" campaign managers, questionable services, or competitive markets? And, what mechanism might their be put into place that would mitigate collusive marketing practices? And, three members who share levels of default trust do have a collusive power to implement their will via "mob rules" because their voices are more esteemed by default and the "band wagoning" nature of the trust rating system. It goes back to my original concern; What is the function of this organization: is it to reduce spam by eliminating "rogue" campaigns, or to eliminate "rogue" campaigns by disenfranchising competitive services?