to say that they detected unusual activity on an account
without specifying to the owner/user of the account
exactly what unusual activity it is that they observed at the account
and then go ahead and restrict the access of the user to that account
without specifying to the owner/user of the account
exactly what unusual activity it is that they observed at the account
[ PERSONALITY IN THE PHOTO : CHRISY CHRIS ]
[ SOURCE OF PHOTO : THE INTERNET ]
it is even more silly? and more sense-less of twitter to make it impossible for the user
of such an account to delete the account after he / she has learnt that the account has
been restricted and/or determined to have exhibited un-usual activity.
i mean,
if an account is determined to be in any wise un-wholesome then
the user /owner of the account should be allowed / empowered to delete the account
if and when he / she so desires and/or wishes.
simple.
straight-forward.
completely devoid of chicanery,mendacity and duplicity.
[ PERSONALITY IN THE PHOTO : CHRISY CHRIS ]
[ SOURCE OF PHOTO : THE INTERNET ]
after-all,
what is the sense in saying that an account on your site is showing un-usual activity,
and then you don't delete the account ?
and then you also go further to prevent -- TO REPEATEDLY PREVENT -- the owner/user from deleting it ?
.. especially after he/she has discovered through a notification from you that the account has been deemed to have shown un-usual activity ?
difficult to see honesty, clarity and common sense in that proceedure.
and ditto for the absurdity that
when twitter suspends .. unilaterally suspends .. an account
without specifying to the owner/user of the account
exactly what rules, guide-lines, operational conditions that he / she flouted that earned him / her such sanction
twitter in it's difficult to understand wisdom or lack? of? it? if you will
doesn't delete the account ?
and then also goes further to prevent -- TO REPEATEDLY PREVENT -- the owner/user from deleting it ?
.. especially after he/she has discovered through a notification from twitter that the account has been deemed to have shown un-unsual activity ?
[ PERSONALITY IN THE PHOTO : CHRISY CHRIS ]
[ SOURCE OF PHOTO : THE INTERNET ]
i mean,
if an account is determined to be in so un-wholesome that it earns suspension then
the user /owner of the account should be allowed / empowered to delete the account
if and when he / she so desires and/or wishes..
simple.
straight-forward.
completely devoid of chicanery,mendacity and duplicity.
after-all,
what is the sense in saying that an account on your site has been so un-wholesome that you suspended the account, .. unilaterally suspended .. the account
without specifying to the owner/user of the account
exactly what rules, guide-lines, operational conditions that he / she flouted that earned him / her such sanction
and then you don't delete the account ?
and then you also go further to prevent -- TO REPEATEDLY PREVENT -- the owner/user of the suspended from deleting it ?
.. especially after he/she has discovered through a notifier from you that flashes on the screen whenever he/she tries to access the account that it has been suspended ?
.. unilaterally suspended .. ? without him / her been told i.e informed specifically to exactly what rules, guide-lines, operational conditions,
IF ANY,
that he / she flouted that earned his / her account the suspension.
doesn't make any sense at all, really.
[ PERSONALITY IN THE PHOTO : CHRISY CHRIS ]
[ SOURCE OF PHOTO : THE INTERNET ]
odd. very odd.
odder and odder still when you reflect on it.
doesn't show transparency.
doesn't show straight-forward-ness.
doesn't show an absolute absence of chicanery.
doesn't show an absolute absence of mendacity.
doesn't show an absolute absence of duplicity.
[ PERSONALITY IN THE PHOTO : CHRISY CHRIS ]
[ SOURCE OF PHOTO : THE INTERNET ]
probably a reflection of the essential, inner-most nature of the operating concern.