@shorena
I just meant if all signature campaigns had a max post cap (that they'll pay out on per week) e.g. 150 then post quality is likely to be fairly high. I'm sure nobody really wants to do over 150 a week any way really if it's not paid.
Quickseller did more than the limit in the past even though it was not paid.
I'm not here to criticise any campaigns but some have no limit per week, I've seen several users making hundreds of posts a week.
I dont think its that simple. There are very active and contributing members with a paid signature. If they make 300 constructive posts per week, why not paid them a fair price for it? IMHO limits are either an easy way to "reduce spam" without actually doing anything or just a limit on how much those running the campaign are willing to pay. It does not remove the need to check your participants.
I don't think staff need to step in on anybody at the moment but obviously if there are unlimited pay per post campaigns they're obviously more likely to be abused than Da Dice for example who pay for a max of 100 posts.
IMHO the reputation of a campaigns manager and their ability to fight spam is more important. If "it is known"[1] that a certain campaign has very strict anti spam rules and dedicated managers to enforce them, it will get avoided by those trying to game the campaign for a few (million) satoshi. If the campaign is mainly run by bots that can easily fooled by adding some bullshit at the end of each post, it will be done and mods have to step in. I have said this in the past and I will say it again, this is not something you want the staff to handle. It should be handled by campaigns and their managers. If this gets to much work for staff, they will not double the mods, they will just ban paid signatures. A ban on paid signatures in demand since I can remember by many old members.
IMHO this is a simple "get your act together you dont want a higher authority to solve this for you" situation.
[1]
http://cdn.meme.am/instances/500x/53532811.jpg