Neutral feedback makes it hard to spot those users (eg think about a campaign with 100 users, a manager would have to parse 100 trust pages to spot such tags, as they dont show up like negative trust does).
The reason some use negative feedback to tag spammers/shitposters is because it stands out. It's easy to spot.
You're talking like the Forum should adapt trust system to signature campaign and help their manager. Why should this be? They work for a paid job.
Theymos started a thread about improving post quality. He is looking for changes and adjustments to make in order to achieve that goal.
The motion is there, not from me, but from theymos himself (even though the changes he is ready to make are a bit limited so far, eg "serious discussion").
I think we are at a point where the forum has to "adapt" something in order to achieve progress here. To change something, theymos should get involved and help making that change possible.
On a pure community level, this battle is lost. SMAS has little impact if there are campaigns ignoring the problem and contributing to the spam. Fighting it with less than half the campaigns is a start, but only that.
No, I dont want theymos to change the trust system to ease the work of campaign managers,
but I do believe that if theymos would work together with the majority of campaign managers on a joint effort, we could make some noticable progress in the right direction.
At that point, why use the trust system at all.
Trust system haven't relation with posting quality, again spamming/shitposting exist simple, available to all "report to moderator" system.
I'm the leading user in most correct reports (at least I was last I've had the chance to get an update from theymos), believe me, I know about that and I use it a lot.
There's limit to the reports though (eg I cant contact campaign managers that way, only moderators, I can only report posts that violate the rules, not spam).