I meant "by definition". Ugh.
Could we also expand this topic a little by inviting people to share actual data (or press reports, or whatever) that indicate Google does things this way? Because I can't see that it would give them much return on the effort. I mean, if you are a webbie who repeatedly creates lots and lots of sites Google considers spam, it might be worth their time for Google to identify you so they know what to do with all your future sites. But punishing any ol' webmaster because some of your sites get less traffic than others? What's the point? And that would punish people who run sites about causes or orphan diseases that are not terribly popular with most folks, but mean a lot to people who are affected by them. It just doesn't seem like this would be worth Google's time except as a penalty for a webmaster who offends repeatedly.