but if each manager has the ability to reduce spam in their campaigns on an individual bases, what is the intent of the organization?
As of OP:
Who and what are you?
We're a community effort started by signature campaign managers. Initially, the idea came from yahoo62278.
We want to connect accross different campaigns and fight spam on this forum together. We're looking for better communication and better organisation in this matter.
Is it to gain the ability to eliminate "rogue" campaign managers, questionable services, or competitive markets?
When did SMAS go against non-participating managers? When did we attack services with campaings not managed by SMAS for the sake of gaining an advantage?
There are managers adopting to the SMAS lists who aren't a part of the current team (notaek for example uses the lists IIRC).
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 isn't in any DT relation (and further in none to me), neither was Lauda at the point we re-activated this.
Further, the feedback system is independent from that, we're currently not using trust feedbacks in the act of SMAS.
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?
Neither, we eliminate posters with low quality from our campaigns, taking their incentives to continue spamming the forum (which is currently one of it's biggest problem), the more coverage we have, the more effective we can do that and the better the reading experience for genuine forum users will become once again.
Things are still far from being good, but I think SMAS is already showing a little impact and clearly showed it's potential by now.
Does SMAS have an official name for users like him?
Part-time spammer?!