So you've deleted everything? The profile looks clean now.
I also want to know is it worth it for that user to get a temporary ban or permanent ban once the main purpose of posting the link is known?
Everything I deemed as advertising, which was everything as the link was always included. Plus, they didn't have many if any posts actually interacting after posting the threads. I can only nuke, and therefore deciding against that, since I thought a temporary ban would likely be better. That's up to the globals/admins though. They might deem the removal of the posts, enough of a warning. If the user continues, I'd say report it, and further action will likely be taken.
But in this case, I really want to know if someone who 100% posts a referral link on this forum as a real effort to increase the traffic of his site or personal blog is not breaking the rules? I may have forgotten something.
In this case, it was clear to me that the user was posting these articles for the sole purpose of advertising their site. They were sprung around the forum, not only Politics, and society. They rarely if ever contributed back to the discussion. They were also all posted within a short period of time, even ones that were made several days ago, were all bunched up within a few hours of each other if I recall correctly, at the very least the same day.
However, just to be clear; when you say referral, referrals usually mean in terms of interneting (that's a word, right?), a referral that someone earns from, probably better described as a affiliate link. That wouldn't be allowed, unless specific conditions were met. However, when a site posts a tracking link (which could be confused with a referral link, as they're effectively the same) to their own site, for them to track how many visitors they receive specifically from their Bitcointalk thread, that's generally okay. However, not for everything thread, as that's advertisement spam. Usually, this method is seen on announcement threads, as it does make sense there.
It's surprising that a much pronounced board like Politics and Society comes without a moderator. If gambling board could have one, I suppose the P&H should have one too. I see that the rules to this board was crated by
Flying Hellfish and possibly its moderation but the user haven't been active for almost a year. I wonder if the user is still with us and could this be the reason for the neglecton the board? Something ought to be done.
It's probably the most difficult section to moderate. Not because of the sheer amount of spam, but the fact you're going to piss users off no matter what stance you take. There's going to be complaints made, and ultimately it's going to be a difficult job picking out what's spam, and what's isn't. Personally, and I know this is going to be seen as detrimental to a lot of users there, but most things should be left, as long as there's some sort of discussion. However, there needs to be substance, and I'm not saying correct substance, but a explanation or reason to believe what they're posting. You know, if someone posts "god is great", and that's all, that to me is spam. However, that would likely be argued as censorship by some, but its really not. You need someone to be objective, without any sort of bias at all. So, really they shouldn't care what the person is saying, but rather if it's substantial enough.
That's ultimately why the P&S section has struggled over the years I'd say. It's a great section, some proper good posters there, and some of the most interesting discussions are had there, that comes with some big personalities, with some absolutely crazy stances, but you need someone to be able to separate that craziness, and apply objective based moderating.
Also, due to the nature of the discussions; there's plenty of drama there. The ideal candidate probably isn't someone that routinely gets involved with discussion honestly
so they don't build up these subconscious feelings towards users that they've gotten into debates with which effects how they moderate.
theymos has his work cut out for him with that section
.