If users started to regularly "hush" each other for low-quality posts then a useful per-user statistic "H" might be the following:
H = (T / P) ** (1 - S)
Where:
T = The number of times this user was hushed in the previous activity window.
P = The number of times this user could potentially have been hushed in the previous activity window.
S = A severity/harshness control between 0 and 1.
I imagine that if this "hush factor" were shared with campaign managers (no point in paying for posts that aren't being seen) so that they could adjust their payments by it (i.e. scaling the payout by 1 - H), that would make a compelling disincentive for bad posting behavior.
Setting "S" to 0.5 would be a good starting point, but someone (presumably @theymos) would have to carefully fine-tune it to decide how punitive this countermeasure should be.
Am still having a little difficulty in following up on these calculations with regards to having it shared with campaign managers to be a determinant on unincentivised posts.H = (T / P) ** (1 - S)
Where:
T = The number of times this user was hushed in the previous activity window.
P = The number of times this user could potentially have been hushed in the previous activity window.
S = A severity/harshness control between 0 and 1.
I imagine that if this "hush factor" were shared with campaign managers (no point in paying for posts that aren't being seen) so that they could adjust their payments by it (i.e. scaling the payout by 1 - H), that would make a compelling disincentive for bad posting behavior.
Setting "S" to 0.5 would be a good starting point, but someone (presumably @theymos) would have to carefully fine-tune it to decide how punitive this countermeasure should be.
Like, how do they come to make such conclusion given that, we've got thousands of users on the forum including newbies and these guys aren't restricted to participating on advertised services on the forum. Hence, they said as a potential customer.
Again, these "HUSH" would be individually given and there are chances that, not even half of the forum would "HUSH" a particular user or even get to share with campaign managers and as such, it becomes statistically insignificant and might not appeal to campaign managers. How then do we work that?
That way, I can "hush" with reckless abandon and still be assured that nobody will fall off my radar forever. 
Considering the fact that users could get abandon on a radar forever,Won't having a list just like we do in the trust inclusive and exclusive be nice for ignored users. So if it becomes a matter of necessity that some users have been ignored fir so long or without conscious thought, a glance and one could find what's wrong.
I'll give you an example of how such ignore could course a complication when users forgets what have been done previously right here:
Wait, what is f**king wrong!
A listing could serve as some pointers.