Does spamming warrant a negative trust?

[ranochigo]

I've recently came across numerous post which doesn't make any sense nor does it relate to topic and it seem like they were just made to farm the account. Do these warrant a negative trust?
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=515461;sa=showPosts
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=1019752;sa=showPosts

The posts are made in short bursts and are posted with little to no thought put into it. I've added a negative trust just to deter any potential account buyer though I'm not from DT. What do you think? Do they deserve negative trust or not?

I've used the report to moderator function but some goes ignored.

[Quickseller]

No. Spamming is not scamming, which is what warrants a negative rating.

Making many posts in short bursts in-itself is not against forum rules, although there is a high chance they have little/no value, which may result in the account getting banned.

If you believe someone deserves a ban and/or deserves to have multiple posts deleted and the report to moderator button has proven ineffective, you can open a thread in meta about the person.

[actmyname]

Up to you. I don't think spamming is a behavior indicative of most trustworthy individuals: rather it's quite the opposite.

[aTriz]

Not in my opinion and it really depends on what you are spamming. Some people purely make bitcontalk accounts to help kill competition for icos or website or anything else. These people will spam FUD and rumours and I think that they should be punished, especially if what they are saying hurts someones reputation.

For example, heaps of accounts are made by people who are trying to sell something and they just constantly bump/repost it in an attempt to find customers. I think negging these accounts would be beneficial.

[1NV3ST0NM3]

Perhaps people want to create accounts and later sell them, they just do not care about the post quality of their posts.
I don't belive negative feedback is guarantee but some kind of reference like the one I had from Timelord in my trust page.

[Lauda]

Depends who you ask. The trust system guidelines are quite vague on most cases, thus it comes down to the *forum etiquette*. Generally, we (unfortunately) do not tag people for this. In case that you're interested in theymoses personal stance, the answer is no. I've inquired about this (among a few other things) in the past, and even though there was strong support from DT members (both depth 1 and 2), he said that it should not be done.
Then again, people who are not DT1/2 can do whatever they want (rating wise; not that they should obviously).

[erikalui]

No. There were some instances when the some members were given negative trust and the users were not actually spammers but the DT member felt that they deserved a negative trust as the posts were not on-topic according to the DT member. The ratings were changed later. We already have a SMAS list and plus spammers get banned, hence that's more than enough to deal with spammers.

[Lauda]

No.

Again, subjective.

There were some instances when the some members were given negative trust and the users were not actually spammers but the DT member felt that they deserved a negative trust as the posts were not on-topic according to the DT member.

The only two members that stand out (from my analysis/questionnaire), and were against this, were Quickseller (scammer/account trader) and Shorena (DT2, escrow (does account escrows as well)). I'll let you speculate as to why they were against this.

The ratings were changed later. We already have a SMAS list and plus spammers get banned, hence that's more than enough to deal with spammers.

It's nowhere near enough.