When an account is disabled for spamming, the messages should go as well
-
phil.o wrote:
Whatever :doh:
That sums up your contribution to this thread pretty well.
-
You keep aggressing me for no obvious reason. Please stop.
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke! Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
No. You were the one who tried to shoot down a genuine suggestion I made, and added a condescending "whatever" reply when called upon that. And now you think I'm the aggressor? And have the gall to tell me to stop, when you keep adding pointless replies? You have the ability not to carry on this pointless discussion, but I see you're repeatedly choosing to respond, while telling me to stop. Your logic is makes absolutely no sense.
-
No. You were the one who tried to shoot down a genuine suggestion I made, and added a condescending "whatever" reply when called upon that. And now you think I'm the aggressor? And have the gall to tell me to stop, when you keep adding pointless replies? You have the ability not to carry on this pointless discussion, but I see you're repeatedly choosing to respond, while telling me to stop. Your logic is makes absolutely no sense.
I never tried to shoot down anything; I just made a remark which was not against you nor you suggestion; when I stated I did not mean to offend you, you kept on harrassing me. But you can be quiet; I leave this thread and your sunny personnality.
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke! Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
-
I never tried to shoot down anything; I just made a remark which was not against you nor you suggestion; when I stated I did not mean to offend you, you kept on harrassing me. But you can be quiet; I leave this thread and your sunny personnality.
"Five fruits and vegetables a day? What a joke! Personally, after the third watermelon, I'm full."
phil.o wrote:
I never tried to shoot down anything; I just made a remark which was not against you nor you suggestion;
Your remark served absolutely no purpose there, which I thought was already made clear.
phil.o wrote:
you kept on harrassing me.
Nonsense. You responded to every single post I made with passive-aggressive substance, including this one (which I'll respond to).
phil.o wrote:
But you can be quiet
I have the abiliy to be quiet, yes. And so do you. Why are you stating that here though?
phil.o wrote:
I leave this thread and your sunny personnality.
No announcement was necessary, as it's not that important for me to know. But I'd be glad not to deal with any more of your passive-aggressive tripe.
-
Member 14678311 wrote:
first part was concept which was referred from Microsoft doc
it was not referred, it was copied without any reference.
Member 14678311 wrote:
this is lesson learnt for us and wrote a the same thing in mail to webmaster.
Then you have already done all what you could do, that is the email to webmaster and the thread here. Be patient and wait for their decission.
Member 14678311 wrote:
give us one chance to rectify
we can't. We have some privileges, but still are only users. Only CP Staff can reinstaurate. But I don't think they will, as it has already been explained.
Member 14678311 wrote:
continue to help this community. that is what our passion.
then create a new account and continue...
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
Nelek wrote:
then create a new account and continue...
I think it is a new account, and the same person is posting on behalf of their "room mate". :laugh: As explained by OG and others, plagiarists get multiple warnings before an account is closed. If that could not serve as a lesson, nothing else will. X|
-
Nelek wrote:
then create a new account and continue...
I think it is a new account, and the same person is posting on behalf of their "room mate". :laugh: As explained by OG and others, plagiarists get multiple warnings before an account is closed. If that could not serve as a lesson, nothing else will. X|
"My roommate" agrees with your investigation. :laugh:
-
Nelek wrote:
then create a new account and continue...
I think it is a new account, and the same person is posting on behalf of their "room mate". :laugh: As explained by OG and others, plagiarists get multiple warnings before an account is closed. If that could not serve as a lesson, nothing else will. X|
GKP1992 wrote:
I think it is a new account, and the same person is posting on behalf of their "room mate".
So do I, but I still give the benefit of the doubt.
GKP1992 wrote:
If that could not serve as a lesson, nothing else will.
That's exactly the reason why the accounts are not reanimated anymore. They don't learn. And that's exactly what I wanted to say with the "then create a new account" as answer to the "continue to help this community. that is what our passion." because I don't think the nuked account will live again.
M.D.V. ;) If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about? Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
-
When an account is disabled for spamming, any messages they may have posted (especially those that have links) should be automatically removed as well.
It's a can of worms What if an account has been hacked? What if the user just had a brain fart and everyone jumped on him or her before they caught themselves? On one hand it cleans things up quickly, on the other it's a fairly terminal resolution.
cheers Chris Maunder
-
It's a can of worms What if an account has been hacked? What if the user just had a brain fart and everyone jumped on him or her before they caught themselves? On one hand it cleans things up quickly, on the other it's a fairly terminal resolution.
cheers Chris Maunder
Thank you Chris. Possibly apply it only for those "under water" kind of reputation accounts, that are may be only a week old? Better yet just hide the messages away from public view, and if the member appeals then a human could take a look at it and take a decision. Of course, it could still be a can of worms though. Just a thought.