[wp-forums] User.

[Michael B]

On 3/28/06, Podz <podz at tamba2.org.uk> wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I didn't mean to imply I felt you were indiscriminately breaking the url, I
guess more my point was your last, we should simply insist on a WP url.
But then what if diamondseller.com was a WP site ??
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
~Michael Bishop

http://www.miklb.com     http://www.wpstation.com