Quote from: DarkStar_ on January 24, 2018, 05:01:21 PM

Quote from: Joel_Jantsen on January 24, 2018, 03:14:46 PM

Quote from: Lutpin on January 24, 2018, 02:14:59 PM

--snipe--

The only problem with that approach is, not many campaign managers follow SMAS restrictions.

One does not need to use SMAS lists to run a spam free/low spam campaign.

You dont have to, but it's an easy way to pre-select applicants and even the laziest campaigns could contribute towards fighting the problem with that.

I think SMAS has two main aspects I would suggest to carry on into any future projects attempting to solve the same/similar things.
It's a joint venture (even though the group is rather small right now), and it's easy to utilize (open SMAS thread, check if user is on collective list, done).

Quote from: DarkStar_ on January 24, 2018, 05:01:21 PM

I think that's the reason some decided to apply negative trust, as those bounties (usually) don't allow negative trusted users.

Thats along the lines of what I wanted to say in my first post.
Giving negative feedback for spammers forces even those campaigns that don't care about the spam problem to stop rewarding shitposters as the "no negative feedback" rule is probably the most basic rule for campaigns right now.

That's not ideal, but it's a "solution" right now. If we want to change it, we should work towards building something better.