Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff
-
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@stacksofplates said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@stacksofplates said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@jaredbusch said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
An employee's personal response is not a vendor response. Pull your head out of your ass.
They are when they attack customers in public to try to make them look bad or to make the vendor look good. He's a Microsoft representative using the platform to try to defend Microsoft. Microsoft has a responsibility for that.
He is as much a part of the vendor as anyone else. He is Microsoft's only known representative on the community. All vendor responses are made by "an employee." Vendors can't get free passes just because their responses are from "an employee."
Other MS reps are invited here and could speak up if they don't want this being Microsoft's only response. But that it is Microsoft's response is what it is.
The response made was in no way outside of the scope of being an MS representative. It was very much an internal style response from an internal resource.
You could probably make that argument if he had a green badge. I doubt MS has agreed for him to be a representative of their environment and even know that someone has spoken in here that works for them. It’s a lot like people on Twitter, etc that have profiles that say “my opinions are my own” etc. Thy don’t officially speak for the company.
No idea what happened to that middle sentence. I meant to say I doubt MS has agreed for him to represent them let alone even know that someone who works for them has even responded in here.
Well they are aware of the community and have been invited to participate, there is no limits or fees preventing them from doing so, they can openly respond right now. They have an employee in the community who decided to speak out very overtly on their behalf and attempt to shame their customers. In this case "they" have an employee here.
The problem is, if he does something good, MS gets credit. If he attacks customers, we just say "well MS didn't authorize him". We don't know that they did or didn't, what we do know is that they've not disavowed him yet.
The vague "they" here is a problem. What makes "someone" at MS more official than the MS employee participating and speaking on their behalf? What defines an official response versus one we are supposed to ignore? This is a very public, very voluntary MS response.
No one spoke on their behalf, or even implied that they did.
-
OK, let's put this shit to rest.
I NEVER said who I work for, be it whomever I work for now, my previous employers, etc. etc. etc. I know I let it loose a few times, but that was well after I left their employ, e.g. Big Red V. I never have or will use my internal knowledge of places to my advantage in public forums, because I know lots of people and have lots of internal knowledge of various processes and procedures.
My knowledge of the Microsoft ecosystem is my own, because I'm damn good at working with it and have lots of information. My personal lab is setup in Azure. I extend my personal environment with O365 vertical services including AAD. I use Sharepoint Online for development and learning purposes. So I don't have to work for anyone to know everything I need to know.
For all anyone knows, I might work for myself, or work for a vendor, or work for the government. But you will NEVER get an official "I work at blah". So you might have some IRL knowledge, but when I write as PSX_Defector, I speak only for myself. Never question my integrity or imply any official capacity again.
-
@psx_defector so you work for the feds eh. . . nice cover story!
-
@psx_defector said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
OK, let's put this shit to rest.
I NEVER said who I work for, be it whomever I work for now, my previous employers, etc. etc. etc. I know I let it loose a few times, but that was well after I left their employ, e.g. Big Red V. I never have or will use my internal knowledge of places to my advantage in public forums, because I know lots of people and have lots of internal knowledge of various processes and procedures.
My knowledge of the Microsoft ecosystem is my own, because I'm damn good at working with it and have lots of information. My personal lab is setup in Azure. I extend my personal environment with O365 vertical services including AAD. I use Sharepoint Online for development and learning purposes. So I don't have to work for anyone to know everything I need to know.
For all anyone knows, I might work for myself, or work for a vendor, or work for the government. But you will NEVER get an official "I work at blah". So you might have some IRL knowledge, but when I write as PSX_Defector, I speak only for myself. Never question my integrity or imply any official capacity again.
In which case, don't make claims on behalf of an organization. You were pretty clear that you knew things only MS could know like how things "always" work and that there were no outages and all claims of such constitute some conspiracy. Don't act as the voice of a vendor and make claims as such. You were awfully certain you knew what HAD to be the case. You were quick to try to discredit without knowing the situation nor understanding how things work on the vendor side. And jumping to "conspiracy" as the only reason that you might have been wrong about what is logged or what actions is logged... bottom line, claiming that your posts are person and not that of a vendor only after it makes them look bad rather than before, and only when it would have defended them had they been correct but embarrassing when they were wrong, doesn't fly.
You have to choose, are you posting personally or defending a vendor with insider knowledge before you post, not after. And if posting personally, you need to do so in a personal manner. Not as a reaction to the vendor looking bad.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
The vague "they" here is a problem. What makes "someone" at MS more official than the MS employee participating and speaking on their behalf?
What would make someone an official spokesperson on the behalf of any company is an introduction such as:
"Hi I'm Bob from Microsoft, We were introduced to MangoLassi.it and thought it would be a great place to discuss projects, software etc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
If such a thing has never occurred, any discussion of a someone's place of employment is purely banter and anything ever discussed by said OP is to be taken as any other random person making a post about the color of the grass. . .
-
@psx_defector said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
There will still be USP entries. Because AAD will still need to get something from the billing portal, portal.office.com, so something had to have been applied.
Again, what do you see in AAD? Because as my previous screenshot shows, it says who did what and exactly the stuff done. There will always be an entry, because something had to tell your domain that it no longer has Exchange. That feeds back into the portal.office.com site, removing the Outlook link. You can't nuke your service without it.
This post. This information is insider employee only stuff. Only someone inside MS could know what is "always" logged by MS' system. Of course, that information turned out to be incorrect, but this post is not stuff that outsides, even partners, would have access to know. Because it is all "backend logging" information that is option on MS' side. MS decides what is recorded, and MS decides what is exposed, and MS decides what can and can't be done without showing up there.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
The vague "they" here is a problem. What makes "someone" at MS more official than the MS employee participating and speaking on their behalf?
What would make someone an official spokesperson on the behalf of any company is an introduction such as:
"Hi I'm Bob from Microsoft, We were introduced to MangoLassi.it and thought it would be a great place to discuss projects, software etc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
If such a thing has never occurred, any discussion of a someone's place of employment is purely banter and anything ever discussed by said OP is to be taken as any other random person making a post about the color of the grass. . .
Sadly "official" is a purely opinion thing where everyone is free to join and participate from vendors. This is one of the complications of the open contribution system.
The problem here is that because of this, it's useful to have someone come in officially (whatever that means) and attack customers but then claim not to be official only after it blows up in their faces. Since there is no rule about official vs. unofficial, and all people are free to contribute, it does make it very easy to test out different tactics and then associate or disassociate as is practical after the fact.
The vendor gets a win if they fix things, and can claim anything they want if it doesn't.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
The vague "they" here is a problem. What makes "someone" at MS more official than the MS employee participating and speaking on their behalf?
What would make someone an official spokesperson on the behalf of any company is an introduction such as:
"Hi I'm Bob from Microsoft, We were introduced to MangoLassi.it and thought it would be a great place to discuss projects, software etc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
If such a thing has never occurred, any discussion of a someone's place of employment is purely banter and anything ever discussed by said OP is to be taken as any other random person making a post about the color of the grass. . .
Sadly "official" is a purely opinion thing where everyone is free to join and participate from vendors. This is one of the complications of the open contribution system.
The problem here is that because of this, it's useful to have someone come in officially (whatever that means) and attack customers but then claim not to be official only after it blows up in their faces. Since there is no rule about official vs. unofficial, and all people are free to contribute, it does make it very easy to test out different tactics and then associate or disassociate as is practical after the fact.
The vendor gets a win if they fix things, and can claim anything they want if it doesn't.
Official is from the side of the vendor that a person may represent.
IE "Hi I'm Bob from Microsoft" is as clear as day that Microsoft sanctioned the account creation and posting on said forums.
If someone isn't declaring who they are and who they work for, go with the most inocculus answer, they're just some random person.
-
Again, you seem to think I have magic internal knowledge.
Did you miss the line where I work with AAD on my personal shit? Perhaps I know more than you about O365, AAD, and Microsoft in general?
Your external documentation on the O365 and AAD integration. This is also given out in the O365 certification training, which I also possess.
Try again.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
The vague "they" here is a problem. What makes "someone" at MS more official than the MS employee participating and speaking on their behalf?
What would make someone an official spokesperson on the behalf of any company is an introduction such as:
"Hi I'm Bob from Microsoft, We were introduced to MangoLassi.it and thought it would be a great place to discuss projects, software etc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
If such a thing has never occurred, any discussion of a someone's place of employment is purely banter and anything ever discussed by said OP is to be taken as any other random person making a post about the color of the grass. . .
Sadly "official" is a purely opinion thing where everyone is free to join and participate from vendors. This is one of the complications of the open contribution system.
The problem here is that because of this, it's useful to have someone come in officially (whatever that means) and attack customers but then claim not to be official only after it blows up in their faces. Since there is no rule about official vs. unofficial, and all people are free to contribute, it does make it very easy to test out different tactics and then associate or disassociate as is practical after the fact.
The vendor gets a win if they fix things, and can claim anything they want if it doesn't.
Official is from the side of the vendor that a person may represent.
That sounds good, but try to define it in real terms. How does a vendor define who can represent them? You need an official representative in the first place.
But in the real world, that's not how things work. Employees of companies represent them. Your cashier represents McDonald's. Your sales person represents AT&T Mobile. Your sales person represents Best Buy. Employees, interacting with the public to influence the public opinion of the company and its products, are paid representatives. "Official" is a very murky term in these cases. It's essentially impossible to define.
-
@psx_defector said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
Did you miss the line where I work with AAD on my personal shit? Perhaps I know more than you about O365, AAD, and Microsoft in general?
Working with it on your own stuff would not provide the kinds of information you were claiming. You would know things like "some issues and changes are logged here", but you could not know "that changes could not be made without logging."
-
@psx_defector said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
Your external documentation on the O365 and AAD integration. This is also given out in the O365 certification training, which I also possess.
Except we showed that you got it wrong. You said the changes had to be logged there or they could not have happened. Yet the logs didn't show the changes that MS was able to find later. MS admitted that the changes were made officially. So your information about how it works is incorrect.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
If someone isn't declaring who they are and who they work for, go with the most inocculus answer, they're just some random person.
The problem here is that it gives carte blanch to vendors to have official, unannounced reps promote their stuff in very bad ways with no accountability. This is the ProxMox problem that we've seen happen before.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
The vague "they" here is a problem. What makes "someone" at MS more official than the MS employee participating and speaking on their behalf?
What would make someone an official spokesperson on the behalf of any company is an introduction such as:
"Hi I'm Bob from Microsoft, We were introduced to MangoLassi.it and thought it would be a great place to discuss projects, software etc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
If such a thing has never occurred, any discussion of a someone's place of employment is purely banter and anything ever discussed by said OP is to be taken as any other random person making a post about the color of the grass. . .
Sadly "official" is a purely opinion thing where everyone is free to join and participate from vendors. This is one of the complications of the open contribution system.
The problem here is that because of this, it's useful to have someone come in officially (whatever that means) and attack customers but then claim not to be official only after it blows up in their faces. Since there is no rule about official vs. unofficial, and all people are free to contribute, it does make it very easy to test out different tactics and then associate or disassociate as is practical after the fact.
The vendor gets a win if they fix things, and can claim anything they want if it doesn't.
Official is from the side of the vendor that a person may represent.
That sounds good, but try to define it in real terms. How does a vendor define who can represent them? You need an official representative in the first place.
But in the real world, that's not how things work. Employees of companies represent them. Your cashier represents McDonald's. Your sales person represents AT&T Mobile. Your sales person represents Best Buy. Employees, interacting with the public to influence the public opinion of the company and its products, are paid representatives. "Official" is a very murky term in these cases. It's essentially impossible to define.
Sure your point does have its merits, but even at McDonalds, the "employee" can't walk in with ripped sweat pants and his meat visible to the customers and a blunt in his mouth.
The standards for official for a community such as this one are pretty straight forward, if someone creates a welcome post, states who they are and who they work for. You can safely assume that person was told to represent the interests of that company on this community.
Otherwise you're digging a whole on things that are purely speculative.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
The vague "they" here is a problem. What makes "someone" at MS more official than the MS employee participating and speaking on their behalf?
What would make someone an official spokesperson on the behalf of any company is an introduction such as:
"Hi I'm Bob from Microsoft, We were introduced to MangoLassi.it and thought it would be a great place to discuss projects, software etc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
If such a thing has never occurred, any discussion of a someone's place of employment is purely banter and anything ever discussed by said OP is to be taken as any other random person making a post about the color of the grass. . .
Sadly "official" is a purely opinion thing where everyone is free to join and participate from vendors. This is one of the complications of the open contribution system.
The problem here is that because of this, it's useful to have someone come in officially (whatever that means) and attack customers but then claim not to be official only after it blows up in their faces. Since there is no rule about official vs. unofficial, and all people are free to contribute, it does make it very easy to test out different tactics and then associate or disassociate as is practical after the fact.
The vendor gets a win if they fix things, and can claim anything they want if it doesn't.
Official is from the side of the vendor that a person may represent.
That sounds good, but try to define it in real terms. How does a vendor define who can represent them? You need an official representative in the first place.
But in the real world, that's not how things work. Employees of companies represent them. Your cashier represents McDonald's. Your sales person represents AT&T Mobile. Your sales person represents Best Buy. Employees, interacting with the public to influence the public opinion of the company and its products, are paid representatives. "Official" is a very murky term in these cases. It's essentially impossible to define.
Sure your point does have its merits, but even at McDonalds, the "employee" can't walk in with ripped sweat pants and his meat visible to the customers and a blunt in his mouth.
Yes, he can. And if McD's management lets him do that, he can continue to do that. He's their representative and if they like what he's representing, they keep him. If they don't like what he's representing, they make him stop.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
The standards for official for a community such as this one are pretty straight forward,...
I'm not sure that that is true. Mostly because very few like this exist for there to be standards. In most communities, to be official you have to pay and bar other contributions. This is not a unique scenario, but an uncommon one.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
If someone isn't declaring who they are and who they work for, go with the most inocculus answer, they're just some random person.
The problem here is that it gives carte blanch to vendors to have official, unannounced reps promote their stuff in very bad ways with no accountability. This is the ProxMox problem that we've seen happen before.
But in those same cases, the posts or accounts from those people will simply get ripped a new one by anyone who reads/has used the solution before.
You can't say "anyone can represent anyone" and then say "it's impossible to know who anyone actually is". Go off of the merits that can be setup, welcome posts, vendor tags etc.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
The vague "they" here is a problem. What makes "someone" at MS more official than the MS employee participating and speaking on their behalf?
What would make someone an official spokesperson on the behalf of any company is an introduction such as:
"Hi I'm Bob from Microsoft, We were introduced to MangoLassi.it and thought it would be a great place to discuss projects, software etc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "
If such a thing has never occurred, any discussion of a someone's place of employment is purely banter and anything ever discussed by said OP is to be taken as any other random person making a post about the color of the grass. . .
Sadly "official" is a purely opinion thing where everyone is free to join and participate from vendors. This is one of the complications of the open contribution system.
The problem here is that because of this, it's useful to have someone come in officially (whatever that means) and attack customers but then claim not to be official only after it blows up in their faces. Since there is no rule about official vs. unofficial, and all people are free to contribute, it does make it very easy to test out different tactics and then associate or disassociate as is practical after the fact.
The vendor gets a win if they fix things, and can claim anything they want if it doesn't.
Official is from the side of the vendor that a person may represent.
That sounds good, but try to define it in real terms. How does a vendor define who can represent them? You need an official representative in the first place.
But in the real world, that's not how things work. Employees of companies represent them. Your cashier represents McDonald's. Your sales person represents AT&T Mobile. Your sales person represents Best Buy. Employees, interacting with the public to influence the public opinion of the company and its products, are paid representatives. "Official" is a very murky term in these cases. It's essentially impossible to define.
Sure your point does have its merits, but even at McDonalds, the "employee" can't walk in with ripped sweat pants and his meat visible to the customers and a blunt in his mouth.
Yes, he can. And if McD's management lets him do that, he can continue to do that. He's their representative and if they like what he's representing, they keep him. If they don't like what he's representing, they make him stop.
That is my point though, McDonald's wouldn't let their employee show up and do that. Why would you think Microsoft would allow it?
-
@scottalanmiller said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
@psx_defector said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
Did you miss the line where I work with AAD on my personal shit? Perhaps I know more than you about O365, AAD, and Microsoft in general?
Working with it on your own stuff would not provide the kinds of information you were claiming. You would know things like "some issues and changes are logged here", but you could not know "that changes could not be made without logging."
Dude, are you stupid? EVERYTHING GETS LOGGED, it doesn't require a rocket scientist to know this shit.
Again, basic info from O365 training. And knowledge of how it works. Plus I've had people claim this shit, hence I know where to go.
You are projecting and trying to gaslight me on shit you think you know. Knock it off.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Office 365 Email Gone After Forced Logoff:
You can safely assume that person was told to represent the interests of that company on this community.
Sure, in that case. But what about people who are simple allowed, or encouraged, to represent a vendor? It's not the paid full time rep that we really think about, it's the casual "let the do what they want and we'll act like we didn't know later if it goes badly" reps that we worry about.
This could be a casual "no one things about it" problem, or in some companies it is coordinated. When I worked in banking they did this for internal customers. They had official people that they could disavow should things go wrong to cover up issues if things went badly. They were very, very official, but not presented as that so that they could claim that they were not "official" after the fact.
