Re: A different approach to solving the sig spamming problem.
If Bitcoin Talk introduced a shop, and one of the items for "sale" was the right to display a signature, then signatures could become a privilege that had to be earned through responsible posting. Credits could be removed for bad posting, and added automatically for responsible posts. Signature allowances could still be based on rank, and this would preserve the existing merit system.
Signatures are used for marketing proposes, i don't think the forum has to introduce a shop to sell the signatures privileges if it already has the Advertise rounds as you can see on: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5092259.0
Now let's focus on marketing, what do you think is better, to promote a bitcoin project on the forum or to spend that money on Facebook and Google for a campaign. I would say it's better to keep that money between cryptos enthusiasts and not spending it with those nasty marketing beasts. At the end this forum still the best way to get customers for any new crypto business, and limit signature campaigns would be like make a step back in the bitcoin world. We can say the business need from this signatures campaigns to become popular.
Now about the campaign spam, we could fight that with the campaign managers, is in their hands to control the spam and to avoid it. If the campaign manager allows the spam that will be a bad reputation for the business he is advertising, so, if you want to report any spammer now you know where to report him
