Xojo Banning and Deleting Posts

I feel there is a need for a similar article about giving feedback.

The gist of it is: no matter what your credentials, no matter what your supporting arguments, sometimes you can feedback to someone that doesn’t have to respect your point of view or change just for you.
And before we all jump up and shout Aha! Exactly!

Consider this: when people ask for a change or a feature , what they ask for is important to THEM.
They will try to blow up the importance, and invent ‘most people’, ‘the vast majority’ and similar phrases, but at the end of the day, it’s only one person asking.
It only becomes ‘most people’ when ‘many people’ ask for the same thing.
Sometimes, its a great idea.
Often it’s whimsy

I base this on my experiences of reacting to lone voices demanding changes to my own software.
The loud ones get a change, and THEN the complaints come in from ‘the actual most people’ who preferred it the old way. No good deed goes unpunished.

The ultimate expression of this , is page after page of confusing user Preferences: everything you write has to work in at least two ways and becomes hard to manage.
So focussing on what your vision, while listening to but not necessarily acting upon feedback, is the way to stay sane.

1 Like

That’s where your argument falls down …


I think the first point in that article is exactly that - but from the receivers point of view

There are certainly people who blow up “my wish” into “most people” without really knowing if thats true or not

And I would agree that reams of preferences is as daunting as too few
Striking a balance is why we get paid the big bucks :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like

Nope. While the experience was in the past the argument was made in the “present” of the ongoing discussion, e.g. “I base this …” :nerd_face:

Let me go find the grammar police :slight_smile:


:policewoman: :oncoming_police_car: :policeman:
:scream: :face_with_head_bandage:

a little levity never hurt

8 posts were split to a new topic: Puddles Pity Party

I saw what you did over there… :laughing:

1 Like

DANGEROUS DANGEROUS to do so for Markus. He has that what others don’t have.

1 Like

Balls? :laughing:


Cojones like medicine balls!

1 Like

So I don’t know but I feel Christian somehow on the Side of Xojo. Whatever.There is one difference. When you say user forum and list that under your Support while it is your support it is not the most brilliant Idea to ban people which have an Idea to help people. Whatever

He knows what posted. It’s at the top of this thread. Dana didn’t like me replying to her.


Sometimes, it’s just miscommunication. But a ban should be the last resort.

Schnipp that was no miscommunication. He posted, she said no, he posted again, she said no he posted and got banned. She showed who has the power in that house and who can kick somebody out. It was a question of power and not a question of understanding while then she would have got that Hal was right. But she didn’t´t wanted that on INN. Nothing else. Not more. Only that. And that made it really, really uncomfortable for everybody.

I don’t know. But if i disagree and then argue with someone and this someone says the same things over and over again, without bringing new “better” arguments, i can get pissed really fast too.

But otoh, i would not throw this someone out of my house “forever”.
If i would be worried that this someone might frighten other members of my house, i would send him/her away for a few days maybe… :wink:

1 Like

Or just don’t delete posts without reason.

1 Like

The dont want the posts from banned people
But IF those people are part of the Pro & Pro+ group a suspension means they cannot grab betas etc and whatever other things are supposed to come with being part of that group
There ARE alternatives - I know because THIS forum uses the same software.
A SILENCED user can still log in, read, and do just about everything else they just CANNOT post

I suggested this to Geoff

The reply was

I tried but …