OMG, I would absolutely reject that member (arimamib). I took a look at the first page of his post history, and he's writing long, bloated posts that usually mention words of the thread title in the first sentence but that contain very little of interest. The paranoid little devil that lives on my shoulder suspects he might be getting some AI help, but even if that isn't the case, arimamib is a complete shitposter.
I could list dozens, probably a hundred examples for the community to analyze--but why bother? The only opinion that matters as far as whether any shitposting moron gets into a campaign is the manager, not the rest of us who don't manage campaigns.
The campaign managers only see the money, and the websites (who are not here) only see the traffic.
That's certainly true, but it didn't seem to be as bad a few years ago aside from oddball campaigns like Yobit and secondstrade, who would accept anybody and probably didn't even have managers monitoring the campaign participants. I don't think either of those accepted members with negative feedback, however. That should be a rule for any campaign, if only out of self-interest on the part of the project. Who'd want members with red trust advertising for them?
Give 'em hell, JollyGood!