The problem can be seen as a complicated one or can be seen as no problem. I think that both approaches are incorrect.

As somebody said, neutral tag (should) bear no meaning. It's not negative tag. But.. But there can still be problems.
Neutral tag for spamming should be a warning exactly for bounty managers. Of course, a bounty manager can accept even a spammer and not count (and even report!) the spam posts; this could even act as a lesson.
Also some write neutral tags in the way they're clearly negative ones; those may be seen as negative.

Then somebody also rightly said that tags are difficult to remove and I agree. I had a neutral tag many years ago from the mighty Vod. It took me years until he got indeed convinced I should not be tagged, even with neutral.
And tags can no longer bear meaning. A Jr. Member can be easily shitposting because of his lack of knowledge (one has to have a certain level of knowledge to understand how little he knows), and he may have become a decent poster by reaching Sr. Member level. Still, he may have a neutral tag.

I don't say it's the case, I came with hypothetical cases.
All I say that it's not OK to generalize. Every single case (user, manager, campaign) can be different.

I also don't say Royse did good or bad. I think that the measure of all this should be the quality of posts in his campaign(s). If a spammer is allowed to spam, then yes, the complaints are more legitimate. But until then, all this is hypothetical at best.