RE: Annoyed!

RE: Annoyed! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

bellesoumise -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:22:18 AM)
WAY too many

NoirUMC -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:23:40 AM)
One. The second, to a second party, did not go through.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:23:41 AM)
How many 'good morning' messages did you send out to different people? The Spam filter doen't intuitively know you are corresponding with people you alreadyknow. Again, if what you are doing is triggering the spam filter - modify your behavior to avoid causing yourself unnecessary nuisance.

LadyPact -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:24:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoirUMC Ok, LP, tell me something: if the idea is to give me a timeout so I learn my lesson, why have I then been blocked a second time (I was unblocked yesterday afternoon) when I havensent ZERO unsolicited messages in that time? Blocked as in not having the ability to send mail? Usually the term "blocked" is between user to user. If your email was reinstated, and then taken away again, it could be a delayed response (still based on spam you sent previously) and the block was put back on your account. As I've said before, I'm not a moderator, so I don't know what happens once an account is flagged or how it is handled. Mod One has put a response on this thread that, to date, none of the complaints that they have received from folks about being flagged by the spam filter have been without reason. If your mail was allowed again during a review, and then closed again because it was confirmed that you were sending spam, it's still because you were sending spam in the first place. Also, I'll confirm what Lockit has said. I've been in rapid, short content exchanges with another user that have never had a problem. If Win is correct from your journal entry, you are sending mail that creates the response you get. The women you are contacting do not want the messages that they are receiving from you. Pretty simple in My view.

pahunkboy -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:26:56 AM)
The women you are contacting do not want the messages that they are receiving from you./ snip That is not what he wants to hear.

NoirUMC -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:31:10 AM)
Why should the spam filter not instead be modified not to trigger based on innocuous behavior? Obviously simple rapid-fire chat is not enough in itself to triggerthe filter. But if non-actionable rapid-fire chat, which is innocent and blameless, is enough--in concert with any other action or combination of actions--to trigger the sanction, then the filter is just dumb. Again, I don't think my innocuous messages had anything to do with this.

NoirUMC -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:33:34 AM)
If a person has a lolcat-esque "NOT WANT" response to a message, then, as LP pointed out, there is a separate button for that. "NOT WANT!" is nowhere in any of the rules I've read. And, yeah, I have. -.-

mnottertail -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:33:53 AM)
write that filter for me, I want to see what it looks like (please use java, or c/c++)

pahunkboy -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:35:28 AM)
I would LOVE to see ALL of the incoming and outgoing emails UNEDITED. Could you post them (not here tho) and show a link?

NoirUMC -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:36:39 AM)
Neither Java nor C++ will work on a website, silly.

mnottertail -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:37:42 AM)
how is that possibly true? what is the filter filter language?

LadyPact -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:39:46 AM)
The form letter that the OP refers to in his journal is spam. There are no two ways about that. I'm curious to know how many of those were sent out. The content really doesn't matter.

NoirUMC -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:40:15 AM)
Java requires a VM to run and c++ has to be compiled. Neither is used to serve webpages, and neither ever has been. I expect the filter is a JavaScript, which, despite the name, is unrelated to java.

WinsomeDefiance -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:41:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoirUMC Why should the spam filter not instead be modified not to trigger based on innocuous behavior? As numero uno (Mod1) already stated, the site adminstrators ARE in the process of tweaking the new spam program. It takes a while to work out bugs from a new program, mod or upgrade. Mod1 also stated that so far, none of the people who have contacted support and were individually evaluated - were innocent of spamming. I'm assuming this means you as well, since you did state you contacted support. Again, assuming that your support ticket has been read and processed already, something you are doing is considered spam by those monitoring outgoing mail. If you happen to be the one person who has thus far had an issue with the spam filter that IS innocent of spamming, then I'm sure your concerns will be addressed and you will have helped the site administrators know where to focus some of that tweaking they are performing. Tweaks, debugging and modifications are long-term fixes. What you need is a short-term fix and that falls squarely in YOUR lap. Again, modify your behavior if you want to modify your results. Good luck with things, WinD

NoirUMC -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:42:27 AM)
Told you already, LP: none.

NoirUMC -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:44:19 AM)
If the filter is admittedly being tweaked, why is the immediate response of the community to smear and malign anyone caught in it?

pahunkboy -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:45:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WinsomeDefiance quote: ORIGINAL: NoirUMC Why should the spam filter not instead be modified not to trigger based on innocuous behavior? As numero uno (Mod1) already stated, the site adminstrators ARE in the process of tweaking the new spam program. It takes a while to work out bugs from a new program, mod or upgrade. Mod1 also stated that so far, none of the people who have contacted support and were individually evaluated - were innocent of spamming. I'm assuming this means you as well, since you did state you contacted support. Again, assuming that your support ticket has been read and processed already, something you are doing is considered spam by those monitoring outgoing mail. If you happen to be the one person who has thus far had an issue with the spam filter that IS innocent of spamming, then I'm sure your concerns will be addressed and you will have helped the site administrators know where to focus some of that tweaking they are performing. Tweaks, debugging and modifications are long-term fixes. What you need is a short-term fix and that falls squarely in YOUR lap. Again, modify your behavior if you want to modify your results. Good luck with things, WinD If it were me- I would set up a 2nd account- until this is resolved. And I would be careful not to trigger it again.

mnottertail -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:47:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoirUMC Java requires a VM to run and c++ has to be compiled. Neither is used to serve webpages, and neither ever has been. I expect the filter is a JavaScript, which, despite the name, is unrelated to java. I agree that the wrapper is JS, but you think the filter functions are not lex java or c?

LadyPact -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:50:19 AM)
It's very rare for Me to take a look at a person's journal to get background info for a thread. However, the last two entries are very telling. 1. You weren't happy with women simply deleting your messages or telling you that they were not interested. 2. Recently, you increased the age limit on your search. It wouldn't surprise Me at all if you were contacting more people after you saw that "women old enough to be your mother" were also attractive. (If you contacted Me, and I saw that journal entry, I don't think you would have liked how the exchange went, either.) 3. You openly tell people to expect form letters. If your actual communications with others went anything like the above suggests, I'd say the spam filter is working very well.

pahunkboy -> RE: Annoyed! (10/8/2010 10:51:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoirUMC If the filter is admittedly being tweaked, why is the immediate response of the community to smear and malign anyone caught in it? The banter here has not been smear and maligned. It has been fairly tit for tat- - with ample patience early in the thread. Do you want a pity party? Is that it? Are you ok? I mean- is there a new medication you are on? Nobody smeared/maligned you. This is typical banter.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125