Despite OP's trollish intentions, I feel like this turned out to be a pretty good thread. It brought to light an important questions of what is or is not "spam." We are still miles away from resolving the question, but this is a healthy discussion to have.
We all know that quality of post in this forum is largely measured by the length of post.
Speak for yourself.
Campaign rules of 3 different managers in the forum;
♦️ 150 characters minimum. No links & overusing punctuation will count
▶️ Post must be minimum 150 characters long and constructive.
➥ Posts that do not carry a semantic load or posts whose content is less than 200 characters will not be paid.
The rule exists because they don't want participants getting paid to crank out a bunch of shitposts that take 30 seconds to type. Its not logical to infer from it that "long post = good." As a matter of fact, the best posts are those that convey the most information in the fewest amount of words.
BTT needs traffic to keep valid.
Like hell it does. Bitcointalk doesn't need squat from anybody except for theymos, to make sure the lights stay on. You opened yet another account to talk trash so soon? My my...
You have 80–90 active participants. Even if you cut your weekly max post count to 50-60, you will still have the most viewed avatar and signature as the campaign with the most participants on the forum.
This way, there is less controversy, the forum is happy, and so are the participants.
I think something along these lines sounds reasonable. Paying for such a huge post count each week naturally encourages spam and shitposts. There is no way to mentally cartwheel yourself away from such an easy inference. The more posts paid, the lower quality the posts, and the higher chance they will be viewed as "spam." It's kind of an unavoidable correlation.