[wp-forums] User.

[Podz]

Michael B wrote:
> On 3/28/06, Podz <podz at tamba2.org.uk> wrote:
>> Moshu wrote:
>>>> From:  Podz
>>>> "The above
>>>> address MUST link to a WP blog."
>>> This wasn't really a requirement till now, was it? Has something been
>>> changed and I missed?
>>>
>> No - no requirement, but I thought it useful to throw at this spammer.
>> Strangely, it stopped them. Can't think why ;)
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a fan of indiscriminate use of rules.  If it's going to be enforced
> for one, it should be enforced for all.  Just my 2¢

Neither am I, but this person posted 6 replies in minutes. They were out
to spam and keep spamming. So I broke their url and tried to make it
crystal clear to them that I was watching their profile. Leaving a
unbroken profile link is as good as any other link and if we need to
deter spammers then we need to act accordingly and break links as often
as needed. Blocking a user leaves their profile link. Nowhere in any
'rules' does it say that I will break profile url's or change them to
www.I-spam-forums.com both of which I do. It doesn't even say spamming
is disallowed. There are lots of indiscriminate rules that we all have
to deal with and I would hope that my behaviour so far has indicated
that I'm not bending them at will, daily and in a mood-dependent way.
This was a spammer.
They spam, we change the rules.
No committee, no agenda, no big decision - we do what we need to so they
get the message.

I also happen to think that we SHOULD INSIST on a WP url.

P.