I somewhat like this idea:
Another idea which could work, something like merging the SMAS list into the trust system:
- On every profile, besides Trust, there's an option to mark user as spammer
- This instantly makes that user's signature invisible for the user who marked him, or add him into the ignore list, to be decided
- If the user who marked him is on DT1 or DT2; staff; or any other list to be decided, then the marked user losses the right to wear a signature. This way, it's not up to signature managers to allow them into a campaign or not. The forum would disable the signature for him
Some details should be discussed, but that would be the idea.
But what about instead of targetting signatures, making it a community moderated "block". When a user is reported, some heuristic could be applied and if the "score" of the users that reported is high enough, the user would be temporarily banned or at least pushed further up a moderation queue.
Could work too, but removing their ability to wear a signature would be enough in my opinion because it removes the motivation to spam.
Also, they would have the opportunity to improve the quality of their posts and ask the tagger to remove the tag, or others to untag him.
If the user is banned then he can't improve because he just can't post.
Or maybe it could have 2 levels depending on the number of people tagging him, the first one would remove the ability to wear signatures and the second one would ban him.