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?
Just read the thread. It is a joint effort to fight spam via a general blacklist.
Is it to gain the ability to eliminate "rogue" campaign managers, questionable services, or competitive markets?
We can not gain such an *ability*. I have no idea what you're talking about; I'm no magician.
And, what mechanism might their be put into place that would mitigate collusive marketing practices?
What 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.
Yahoo is not in DT, and most of the trust ratings left by Lutpin and me are not on the same members (at this time).
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?
1) How exactly does one "eliminate a rogue campaign" by having a general blacklist? 2) I do not even know what that means. I feel like you're implicitly trying paint the image of malicious intent behind SMAS.
Warning: Cjmoles is just posting because it's his time of month. You won't win any arguments with him, although it's sometimes entertaining to see how far he'll go to back up his irrational nonsense. As soon as he meets his posting quota for his signature campaign you won't hear from him for a couple weeks. And he probably won't be that annoying until the 25 or 26th of next month when he realizes he has to make X number of posts to get his sig campaign payment.