I am actually quite surprised that it is not the norm to tag spammers with a negative rating if you are part of DefaultTrust. That is not a good incentive and it shows in most sections.
The thinking behind why you shouldn't do this is that matters which can be solved with moderation shouldn't be part of the trust system. So if you see comments that are clearly spam, you should just report them to moderators. Enough positive reports for spamming will lead to an account being permanently or at least temporarily banned. Also, just because somebody is a spammer, it doesn't necessarily mean that they wouldn't be trustworthy as far as trading with them is concerned, so
truststrust ratings for this should be neutral at worst.
I don't understand how campaign managers hiring spammers is trustworthy behavior and how you not allowed to evaluate someone's trustworthiness on this matter. Has this been the status quo for a long time here so that people want it to stay that way? Can you at least give them neutral ratings or is that considered wrong too?
I'm not sure I follow the logic on why hiring spammers would make a campaign manager untrustworthy. If spammers are resulting in positive results for a campaign, that means the manager is doing their job, as far as the client is concerned. Some campaigns do concentrate on quantity over quality, and as a forum participant, I can't help but feel that enabling spammers leads to an overall reduction in quality of the forum, which could end up driving web traffic away from the site, so yes the two dynamics are constantly at odds with each other.