Ok... , if I misinterpreted your filename, I'm sorry. I just don't understand why we're having all this talk... This is unnecessary, don't waste your time on me bro...
I only ask that before you ask to take over a member's thread on Babiato, check if this member is really inactive and only then ask
@Tomz for the thread. That way you will avoid conversations like this.
Thank you in advance for your understanding.
FYI:
1. I'm not here to "take over a member's thread" on Babiato, but rather I'm giving a strong help to rebuild Babiato after the incident, both by uploading resources and giving advice about security and hardening to protect Babiato's infrastructure (
@andykim can confirm it);
2. The proposal of my previous reply has been intended just as a clarification on your previous statement, which was not correct at all. In fact as I previously stated the resource has been already updated as "Untouched Version", but I've seen it has been renamed with "Nulled Free" as we can clearly see here:
https://babiato.tech/resources/sumo-affiliates-woocommerce-affiliate-system.7317/updates
Allow me to say that this behaviour is not properly ethical. Therefore if we want to talk about being ethical, let's do so, of course this has to be done by both parts, right? In this case allow me to prove that what I'm saying it's true:
- 2.1:
@Tomz can confirm as he approved the resource, in case he doesn't remember have a look at the points 2.2 and 2.3;
- 2.2: You can check my latest activities here:
https://babiato.tech/members/rand0mbyte.133736/#latest-activity;
- 2.3: Here a screenshot about the deleted post with which I updated the resource, you can check with your own eyes as suggested at point 2.2:
Now, at this point, can you please clarify for everyone how comes that the resource it has been renamed or do you still want to try to state the opposite as in your previous post? This would be much appreciated not only by me, but I think also from the Staff.
It's your right to ask to get back the resource, but of course is also my right to prove that your previous statement isn't correct and to evidence that this kind of behavior isn't ethical as it should be.
I'm not here to avoid discussions if I see that a user is playing tricky games, but rather I'm glad to help you through the debunking of your own statements in order to prevent this to happen again.
Regarding to your statement: "My intention was really to protect you" thanks for your kind interest, but allow me to say that if you check my signature, you will get by yourself that I can well protect myself without any 3rd parties' help.
Thanks in advance for YOUR understanding and of course, as always, if you further need my assistance I'll be glad to help you through. Cheers!
codecanyon.net
