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

Had this been handled privately, as I believe it should have been, that would simply have been needed be between the Dev and the Extras mods.

It doesn't require public humiliation.

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

Agreed, but by the same token: this is often difficult if not impossible to extract when the offender is encircled by an enraged mob with virtual torches and pitchforks. That tends to put people (any of us) on the defensive. Not productive at all.

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

The idea of this sort of thing being dealt with in private makes me a little queasy; I'm not sure how you avoid things getting ugly (though I suspect that having a clear procedure to follow would actually help), but there does need to be transparency.

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

I think it should and could have been a mix: initially approach the developer in private, then once understanding (or an impasse) has been reached, bring the issue into the open.

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

I've always been a proponent of the old adage:

Even in the military.. I used to abhor what they called "Open Mast".

Let's line up the entire command to watch the CO scream at someone. I'm sorry.. we're not 10 anymore. We don't need to be "scared" into doing the "right" thing.

At least.. most of us shouldn't have to be.

As far as transparency.. to an extent. That's why I said that I wouldn't have been against X-Fade or whoever making an announcement and having it locked simply saying:

Or something similar. That's it.... the users can see why their apps magically vanished from HAM - and the dev gets dealt with on the side.

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

The thing is, most of us don't. I wouldn't expect mass public shamings becoming a routine feature of the community.

I think that statement is too incomplete - it makes it sound like an accident, which it wasn't. I do think it's important to have the facts on the record so that people can make up their own minds about them. A number of people have said that they'd be personally unwilling to trust someone that had done this sort of thing again, even if the project as a whole was prepared to give second chances. I think they should have the facts necessary to be able to make that sort of decision.

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

Agreed. I don't see anyone arguing against that.

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

A further clarification:

If it's determined however that the dev was being intentionally malicious... ala sticking the infamous RM joke into postrm.. thereby laughing at anyone that decides they don't like their app.. Or if someone scans source code of an app in Extras and see's code that is capturing and sending passwords, for example.. and the Dev rushed them to Extras due to a different exploit (we're moving forward, remember?)

That would require immediate banning, notice to the Dev their privs are revoked.. and a more detailed announcement here at what exactly the app did - and if anyone has or ever had installed it they likely need to either:
A) modify their postrm real quick
or B) change all their passwords

Etc. Those affect the users directly in a malicious and harmful way.. and people should be warned.

A lot of a punishment has to do with the intention of the dev. If they circumvented some rules out of laziness or self-gain that's one thing. If they did it to create a mass-virus.. that's different.

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

I did say "or similar" ;). If it's decided that more detail is needed for the announcement that's fine.

What we need at this point though, is a committee of some sorts that gather all of these ideas together - and make a wiki or rule article or something that clearly defines:

If a bug in extras is found, report it <here>, if someone notices an App that does not belong in Extras.. report that <here>..

And a clear indication of punishment with examples of the crime it applies to (*not* real life examples.. please god don't somebody go stick SIO2 into a wiki article..).

Making stuff up as we go isn't going to work.

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

I love it when a noisy thread matures and turns productive. ;)