Ryan, I assume that Brian actually uses an application before he decides that the application is in violation.
It will be very helpful and professional if he could be more specific in saying something like, "The feature that you call XYZ in your application is in violation of our rule ABC (the heading section or specific rule, not the general URL) because it does PQR." As you will notice, Jim is left having to make wide assumptions about how his application transgressed. On Feb 16, 5:37 pm, Jim Fulford <[email protected]> wrote: > Well 5 days later, I finaly got a response from Twitter. Posted > below. I'm going to spend the few minutes required to make my app > compliant and see if and when it gets turned back on..... > to be continued.....'' > > On Feb 16, 3:49 pm, PJB <[email protected]> wrote: > ________________________________________ > > truebe, Feb 16 10:52 am (PST): > Hi, > We apologize for the inconvenience, but on review of your application > it appears that it breaks our Automation Rules and Best Practices > (http://help.twitter.com/forums/10711/entries/76915). Specifically, it > facilitates automated tools which allow users to spam and violate our > user rules (http://help.twitter.com/forums/26257/entries/18311). It's > best for both our users and your users if your application follows the > rules, so please make the necessary changes to bring your application > into compliance and we will reconsider your suspension. > Let us know if you have any questions! > Brian > API Support
