Absolutely there are times I won't link to a new site with ads, particularly a blog. I want to see their commitment to the blog before I throw a link to it, no matter how good their content is.
Around four years ago someone requested a link to their new blog. The blogger had an advanced degree in the field related to his blog's niche. I declined to link to his blog and he got pissy about it, that's how I remember this guy. So a year later I check back and he's still going at it, only now he has an extensive blog roll and other links totalling over five thousand links. If he hadn't been a crybaby about the link I would have thrown him a prominent link at that point because he was adding great original content on a daily basis. I'm glad I didn't though because he burned out after the second year and two years later he still hasn't posted additional content.
This has nothing to do with sliding under a policy of not linking to sites with commercial content. I don't understand why you keep arguing that point because it's not a point I'm making or defending.
My point is about putting the focus on the content so the site is fairly evaluated. Putting content out there on a new site that is ad free encourages the link, from me and others. Putting content out there with ads sends a negative message to webmasters like me who are checking the age of a site as part of judging whether this site is spam or not.
Evaluating a link to a site that is brand new and has ads on it makes me look at it harder. How aggressive are they with the advertising and how dedicated are they to the content? An established site with blogads on it is ok with me. A site with a domain regged two weeks ago with blogads already on it sends the wrong message to me. I am more likely to throw a link to a new site with good content that is ad free.