Actually, what he's saying is that it's not always possible to have public, concrete, and well-defined rules that work.
You clearly think that it's possible in this case. So, let's be positive. Let's see a set of rules that meets those criteria. They have to be concrete, well-defined, and presumably relatively fixed and easy- enough to implement relatively efficiently. They have to actually address the abuse problems. And they have to do all that while being public, that is, known to potential abusers. On Oct 9, 10:50 am, SuperCerial <s...@cyberdyneseo.com> wrote: > How about you just answer my question? > > What you're saying is mankind is wrong to live by well defined and > concrete rules. I could steal that car and it will be ok, then again > it might not - what don't you try and find out. You really think > that's right? > > Of course the reality is Twitter is another laissez fair bums on seats > driven site and as google proved, there is nothing like the abiltiy to > change the rules on a whim, or hide a problem for a company of this > ilk. > > On Oct 9, 6:07 pm, John Kalucki <jkalu...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Openness about abuse is generally counter-productive for everyone. For > > example, opaque limits are harder to game and give better detection > > signals. Also, practically, limits need to be adjusted without notice > > to respond changing attacks. In the end, valid access that is > > difficult to distinguish from access overwhelmingly used for invalid > > purposes are sometimes, sadly, going to get caught in a low-latency > > high-volume countermeasure system. > > > -John Kaluckihttp://twitter.com/jkalucki > > Services, Twitter Inc. > > > On Oct 9, 5:23 am, SuperCerial <s...@cyberdyneseo.com> wrote: > > > > Absolutely true. on both counts... > > > > However, not so long ago Twitter banned many accounts by mistake > > > because they used tweetlater. > > > > The trouble is on one hand Twitter supports, encourages the creation > > > of these applications and on the other hand fails horribly to provide > > > sufficient guidelines about their use. I know one of the accounts was > > > purely posting quotes of a dead comedian, and this went down very well > > > - had a big following of people who regularly responded positively. > > > Account status today? Suspended. Why? Who knows. Who is being asked > > > about this? Me. > > > > It is not up to the 600 individuals to contact Twitter but rather for > > > Twitter to explain what is changing so people can ensure they are > > > within these new parameters. > > > > On Oct 9, 10:07 am, Andrew Badera <and...@badera.us> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2009 at 11:03 PM, Abraham Williams <4bra...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Twitter's spam flagging system is an ever-changing trade secret. It is > > > > > unlikely that you will get a direct answer. Have the 600 account > > > > > holders > > > > > contact Twitter support and hopefully they will get re-enabled > > > > > quickly. > > > > > Abraham > > > > > Or, in the event that they ARE spammers, hopefully they WON'T. People > > > > writing, selling or hosting multiple-account management software need > > > > to become a LOT more circumspect in who they serve as clientele, and > > > > how precisely they serve them. There is a TON of abuse here, and > > > > greedy people need to learn a lesson. > > > > > Not saying that's the case with the OP, but I'm EXTREMELY happy to see > > > > more aggressive filtering going on! (And looking forward to the > > > > Address Book!) > > > > > ∞ Andy Badera > > > > ∞ +1 518-641-1280 > > > > ∞ This email is: [ ] bloggable [x] ask first [ ] private > > > > ∞ Google me:http://www.google.com/search?q=andrew%20badera-Hide quoted > > > > text - > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -