It all comes down to the campaign managers and the companies being responsible for their participants..

I think if a paid poster gets banned for spamming then whoever is paying them to do so should recieve a stern warning, meaning the campaign manager and the representetives of the company..

If the campaign manager gets a warning about his employee being banned, strike 1, Warn them one more time strike 2, if they keep paying employees that are getting banned for spamming then strike 3 permaban that manager..

Something like if you are a manager and 3 accounts you are paying get banned for the spam that you are paying for in a rolling month - Permaban that manager.
Same for plagiarism, you have been paying accounts to plagerise? Permaban..

Ha ha, by by shit manager.. Better not ban evade and come back with another account to shitmanage with either..
That would put a fire under the asses of managers to make darn sure they aren't incentivising spammers..

If you want to ban users for spamming I think it is perfectly logical to ban whoever is paying them to spam right along with them..


What needs to happen is the companies representatives are the ones that need to be held accountable for the actions of their employees..


You negotiate this with the companies don't you? Why don't you refuse to implement minimum weekly posts yourself? You can also refuse to accept low posting standards too..

Not you in specific Yahoo because you do a good job, but you would probably keep a lot closer eye on your employees post quality if you yourself risked a permaban by paying for spam wouldn't you?


Maybe not 3 banned employees a month, maybe 5, maybe 2, but I advocate putting the pressure directly on those who are supposed to be responsible for it in the first place..