Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Yes actually it should. If you are willing to condemn him for it then it should be explicitly stated. Technically what he did didn't violate the rules.

I would also like to point out that if this guy was a company it would not have violated the rules to have his employees create and account and vote up the app. We should probably nip that in the bud before it becomes an issue. Assuming anyone planning commercial releases into this piss poor commercial environment is still considering doing so.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I feel the same that there's too much over reacting going on. Yes he broke the rules, but I at least feel that it's somehow justified at this point in time due to expected sharing grounds not being implemented.
Extras is the only viable option to sell apps at the moment, and that shouldn't be the case.

No one can deny that Ovi Store should've been up and running PROPERLY since pre-launch, yet it's still not functioning properly.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I think the question we should be discussing at this point is How does Nokia percieve this?

Extras was enabled by default due to a lot of hard work by this community. It was a great effort!

Unfortunately, we have now seen how easily and casually our efforts at providing quality software can be circumvented. If I were a Nokia higher up, I would have to re-think the decision to allow Extras to be enabled by default. At least until the community can show how we intend to prevent this type of abuse in the future.

Everyone warns how unsafe testing or devel may be. Clearly there is now evidence that Extras may be unsafe as well.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

One would hope Nokia would see this as a HUGE wake up call that they need to remove the digit that is firmly implanted in their anus and get the OVI store into shape.

I have no confidence that they will however

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

We're all so keen on claiming we're a community yet we don't act like one: in a community we support each other.

That means we praise someone when we does or delivers something good and when someone does something bad, we point out the wrong in his actions and expect an apology to which we grant forgiveness in return. I'm sure I can toss the world "synergy" and "ecosystem" somewhere in there :)

I'm not trying to defend his actions but come on! How about a realistic consideration: this a community, not an eutopia.

We do put a lot of faith in other members' trustworthness and we are bound, at some point, to be disappointed.

Like all issues, this one must be placed in context:
he did do something wrong and nothing I will say will make it acceptable but what he did was somewhat understandable.

How about we correct the issues in our QA process, remove his sticky thread from the games thread as punishment, and simply get him to go through the voting process again.

He (hopefully) learns his lesson and we modify the process to try and stop this from occuring again.

Sounds fair no?

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I think that I have said quite many times that I will forgive, but off course there is some people who will not tolerate at all this kind of behaviour.

I still do not understand how you see Nokia as reason for his actions? Please try to explain me. I would never ever try to justify my actions by misfortune, bad luck or 3rd partys fck ups.

Maemos policies has nothing to do with Nokia's.

This is just one channel in endless possibility of other channels. Off course this has advantage of being enabled by default, but still i do not understand your point.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Amen..............

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Because ultimately Nokia is responsible. Look he shortcut the process - there is no question about that. Wasn't a cool thing to do but it also wasn't against the rules, so by the letter of the law (and no I am not a lawyer) he did nothing wrong.
But think about this it could have gone this way instead.

Dev Hears about maemo -> decides to port his product to platform -> ports product -> pays money to Nokia for rights to publish to store -> publishes product to correctly functioning store.

End of story. No thread here, no questionable practices, no moral outrage. All because Nokia did the correct thing and FIXED THE GODDAMN STORE.

Oh and one last point - I have searched and searched for the thread of moral outrage that took place when people discovered they could get the angry birds download for free. I can't find it. it seems people are only moral to a point and the stealing of software is apparently well within that point.

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

I couldn't have said it better myself

Re: SIO2 Interactive spamming votes to get his/her applications to Extras
 

Well, that's a view, but I think you're wrong. You can't legislate for people deliberately choosing to act badly, and you shouldn't have to. He can't possibly have been under any illusion that what he was doing was anything other than an abuse of the process, and that really is enough.

That seems to be exactly what has happened. No-one's thrown SIO2 out of the community, he didn't like being called on behaviour that I think we all agree was not right, and went off in a strop. Maybe he'll be back to do things properly next time, but that's up to him.

That seems to be the current state of play. So far at least, there hasn't been anything approaching a decision not to let him back in if he comes back and acts appropriately.

This seems to have run exactly as it should:
- Developer does bad thing,
- Bad thing gets caught,
- Bad thing gets reverted, and developer is asked to account for themselves.

Exactly which part of this process shouldn't have happened?