Paid Mods - Xenforo Verified Designation

[Snog]

I can release an addon now, grab the cash and only after 1 year that addon would be labeled as unmaintained. But the money is gone and the dev can come back later and do as if nothing happened.

He has to deliver a product in return to the money he asks. That's it. And if he doesn't, I don't see much punishment for that.

I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm not condoning this, but there is a sticking point.

If it was listed as a 1 year license, you got what you paid for. Therefore there is nothing to punish.

 

[wang]

That is a very valid point. And I fully support you in this.

But what you are saying is actually different from what the original poster said. He wanted a guarantee of sorts from XenForo, that addons work, provided by a verified Badge or whatever. Whereas what you are referring to is for XenForo to act as an arbitrator. The two are related but very different things.

If XenForo decided to charge a percentage of sales and act as an arbitrator of complaints and disputes it would no doubt immensely help the marketplace. The trouble again is that as things stand currently, there is zero chance of this happening. For starters, you would need xenforo to implement a payment solution where payments go through them. And They would need additional staff. And how much profit is there really in spending two hours on arbitration of a $10 addon sale?

I did go a bit off course sir, you are right. But I did it to expand on OP 's post to what I thought it will be a nice additonal thing to have in the Resource Manager.

 

[sbj]

I am playing devil's advocate here. I'm not condoning this, but there is a sticking point.

If it was listed as a 1 year license, you got what you paid for. Therefore there is nothing to punish.

I don't know how this works over there in the States, but you can't do this here in the EU, at least in the country where I live.

By purchasing a product, a contract/agreement between the customer and developer is accomplished. The developer MUST deliver and fulfill the agreement.

Most of the time we can read on the resource description what the addon can do. That stuff must be delivered by the dev, that stuff must work for the customer.
If this is not working, the customer has the right to ask for making it to work. The customer can even ask for his money back, when the dev refuses to deliver.
(In extreme situations, the customer could also ask for compensation from the dev. Let's say the CMS he asked for is not working, he can't sell his products cause he can't use the database for his shop when someone ordered something. Then that dev must pay the compensation for it...)

The agreement also includes the 1 year support. If a developer praises with that, he needs to fulfill this. You can't just sell stuff by praising you also guarantee support, and disappear after 2 months. That is clearly against the agreement.

Look, I know the life of xen-addons developing is not very profitable. And most of us, the users, are patient and wait weeks or months for updates. But it can't be that the devs don't have to fear any kind of punishment. It is just not how a real market works. Anybody has to follow the laws. Devs can't just put themselves upon the laws.

 

[Snog]

I don't know how this works over there in the States, but you can't do this here in the EU, at least in the country where I live.

By purchasing a product, a contract/agreement between the customer and developer is accomplished. The developer MUST deliver and fulfill the agreement.

Most of the time we can read on the resource description what the addon can do. That stuff must be delivered by the dev, that stuff must work for the customer.
If this is not working, the customer has the right to ask for making it to work. The customer can even ask for his money back, when the dev refuses to deliver.
(In extreme situations, the customer could also ask for compensation from the dev. Let's say the CMS he asked for is not working, he can't sell his products cause he can't use the database for his shop when someone ordered something. Then that dev must pay the compensation for it...)

The agreement also includes the 1 year support. If a developer praises with that, he needs to fulfill this. You can't just sell stuff by praising you also guarantee support, and disappear after 2 months. That is clearly against the agreement.

Look, I know the life of xen-addons developing is not very profitable. And most of us, the users, are patient and wait weeks or months for updates. But it can't be that the devs don't have to fear any kind of punishment. It is just not how a real market works. Anybody has to follow the laws. Devs can't just put themselves upon the laws.

Maybe I wasn't clear about the one year thing.

Let's say I create an add-on with 1 year of support. You purchase it and are the only person to purchase it. I support it for the year and after that time I discontinue that add-on because it's not popular. All legal requirements have been met, no?

 

[TPerry]

The agreement also includes the 1 year support. If a developer praises with that, he needs to fulfill this. You can't just sell stuff by praising you also guarantee support, and disappear after 2 months. That is clearly against the agreement.

You keep doing a moving target.. the quote you replied to was a specific reply to your statement of

I can release an addon now, grab the cash and only after 1 year that addon would be labeled as unmaintained. But the money is gone and the dev can come back later and do as if nothing happened.

The point he was making was, if after 1 year it was marked as unmaintained, you have no grounds for complaint as you paid your fee, you got your year of support and then the item was longer a maintained resource. Just because you purchase it and get your year does not mean that they have to continue maintaining that resource forever and having it for sale.

 

[TPerry]

Maybe I wasn't clear about the one year thing.

No, you were very clear as far as I could observe... as my previous post indicates. I understood it to be exactly how you stated.

 

[sbj]

@Snog @Tracy Perry

I think there is a two-sided misunderstanding here.

I didn't realize that you were talking about the support after the 1 year. I apologize.
Cause initially my post you quoted, wasn't talking about this. I think you misunderstood that, which made me misunderstood you.

Let's say I create an add-on with 1 year of support. You purchase it and are the only person to purchase it. I support it for the year and after that time I discontinue that add-on because it's not popular. All legal requirements have been met, no?

That is correct. All legal requirements are fullfilled in this situation. Of course you don't need to continue the addon after that year.

But when I said this:

I can release an addon now, grab the cash and only after 1 year that addon would be labeled as unmaintained. But the money is gone and the dev can come back later and do as if nothing happened.

I didn't mean, that the dev delivered 1 year of support and then disappeared after that.

I meant that the dev got the money, and disappeared 2 months after he got the money. There are still 10 months he has to support me though. But because he disappeared, he will not support me for the rest 10 months, which is clearly against the agreement.

And in that 10 months, the addon would be fore sale, even though the dev is not around anymore. People may be able to purchase. And XF would mark this as unmaintained when the whole year of the last update is finished. So other customers won't realize that the dev disappeared. Just 10 months later.

And no punishment for this behaviour. Obviously this is a hypothetical situation and doesn't occur much.
But often many devs disappear for 1-4 months. And then they come back as if nothing happened. The customer can't do anything about this. The dev doesn't get to fear anything. He is clearly not fullfilling his side of agreement by disappearing when he wants for how long he wants. And you sit there and just wait patiently.

 

[TPerry]

And in that 10 months, the addon would be fore sale, even though the dev is not around anymore. People may be able to purchase. And XF would mark this as unmaintained when the whole year of the last update is finished. So other customers won't realize that the dev disappeared. Just 10 months later.

That's where due diligence on the part of the purchaser is required. Most add-ons have a discussion thread attached - albeit some can be quite lengthy. No matter the length, there is still the need of due diligence on the part of the purchaser to check the thread for issues. To many people "can't take the time" to read those threads and then gripe about items that have already been discussed in said thread.

But often many devs disappear for 1-4 months. And then they come back as if nothing happened. The customer can't do anything about this. The dev doesn't get to fear anything. He is clearly not fullfilling his side of agreement by disappearing when he wants for how long he wants. And you sit there and just wait patiently.

If they provide support/updates during the 1 year period, then they have met their requirements. I haven't seen a tier level of support requirements with a TOS guideline giving them specific time allowances to respond to issues within. And I haven't seen any dev's give statements that lead one to expect weekly/bi-weekly/monthly updates. In addition, when you purchase an add-on, one has purchased it with the level of ability it has AT THAT TIME. To expect them to improve it/add features to it is nice.. but they realistically don't have to.

 

[Sadik B]

@sbj You are right in what you are saying if something like this happens. For someone who paid for one year of support and the dev disappeared after a month, they would have been wronged if they encounter an issue and receive no support.

But for other people, if someone buys an addon without even checking if the developer has been recently around or not, they share the blame for getting duped. Yes, you can decide to buy something if it is the only thing which fulfills your requirement and you know that you will probably not receive support since it doesn't look like the dev is around.

But if someone claims that they bought and didn't realize that the dev has been absent for a month, well, they are also to be partly blamed for their troubles.

 

[Snog]

@Snog @Tracy Perry

I think there is a two-sided misunderstanding here.

I didn't realize that you were talking about the support after the 1 year. I apologize.
Cause initially my post you quoted, wasn't talking about this. I think you misunderstood that, which made me misunderstood you.


That is correct. All legal requirements are fullfilled in this situation. Of course you don't need to continue the addon after that year.

But when I said this:


I didn't mean, that the dev delivered 1 year of support and then disappeared after that.

I meant that the dev got the money, and disappeared 2 months after he got the money. There are still 10 months he has to support me though. But because he disappeared, he will not support me for the rest 10 months, which is clearly against the agreement.

And in that 10 months, the addon would be fore sale, even though the dev is not around anymore. People may be able to purchase. And XF would mark this as unmaintained when the whole year of the last update is finished. So other customers won't realize that the dev disappeared. Just 10 months later.

And no punishment for this behaviour. Obviously this is a hypothetical situation and doesn't occur much.
But often many devs disappear for 1-4 months. And then they come back as if nothing happened. The customer can't do anything about this. The dev doesn't get to fear anything. He is clearly not fullfilling his side of agreement by disappearing when he wants for how long he wants. And you sit there and just wait patiently.

This is where the current rating system comes into effect. I believe you can change your rating at any time (correct me if I'm wrong). If a developer disappears and no longer supports a product, change your rating to reflect that.

And because it doesn't happen very often, I am against anything that would restrict or places additional requirements on the honest developers based on the actions of a minority. It's already happened once with installation and site callbacks for licensing purposes and while I did comply with the requirements I wasn't happy with them. It required a completely new licensing system on my end, which to be honest is not as effective as the old system.

 

[sbj]

That's where due diligence on the part of the purchaser is required. Most add-ons have a discussion thread attached - albeit some can be quite lengthy. No matter the length, there is still the need of due diligence on the part of the purchaser to check the thread for issues. To many people "can't take the time" to read those threads and then gripe about items that have already been discussed in said thread.

Due diligence or not, it doesn't matter. Of course all human beings with a healthy working brain should make some research before they purchase something. BUT the blame is not on them if they don't do. For that we have LAWS. Everybody must follow them. You can't sell me rotten tomatoes and tell me that it is my problem that I hadn't check them. That is legally not allowed.
If you offer your addon for sale, then you must deliver. It is not my duty to check your credibility.

If they provide support/updates during the 1 year period, then they have met their requirements. I haven't seen a tier level of support requirements with a TOS guideline giving them specific time allowances to respond to issues within. And I haven't seen any dev's give statements that lead one to expect weekly/bi-weekly/monthly updates. In addition, when you purchase an add-on, one has purchased it with the level of ability it has AT THAT TIME. To expect them to improve it/add features to it is nice.. but they realistically don't have to.

I am not talking about improvements/features here.
I am around for 3 years now. I am reading XF forums daily. Personally I hadn't any trouble here, but I see people coming and going and try to speak for them.

If there is no TOS guideline (which isn't there) and if the devs don't give statements about the expected response time, then what matters is the agreement. And the agreement states 1 year of support (in most of the cases).
Because the dev was lazy enough not to define how the support looks like, the customer has the freedom to understand within a reasonable sense what support for him means.
And disappearing for months is clearly against the agreement. It doesn't matter what the customer or the dev understands under "support". By disappearing there is technically no kind of support possible, no matter what that might be. But there is no punishments for this behaviour. Devs can disappear whenever they want. They DO disappear. Look at the famous classifieds addon thread. Look what trouble those people are going through. Look what happened with crowdfundings in the past. Look about the situation of Daniel Hood. There are/were plenty of example that states how the real world is.

But for other people, if someone buys an addon without even checking if the developer has been recently around or not, they share the blame for getting duped. Yes, you can decide to buy something if it is the only thing which fulfills your requirement and you know that you will probably not receive support since it doesn't look like the dev is around.

But if someone claims that they bought and didn't realize that the dev has been absent for a month, well, they are also to be partly blamed for their troubles.

No, they can't be blamed for this. Sorry, but this is not how the real world works. We have laws because of that. Customers have also rights. You can't blame the customer for the absence of the developer. If you decide to sell something, you are bound to the laws where the customers lives in. For example EU laws.

And btw. look, we all are human beings. We all have a real life and stuff going on. I think most buyers are reasonable and understand situations. And it is a common thing that a dev disappears for a month. No big deal. So most users would still think "he is not around but will be soon". So many would still purchase by knowing that the dev is not around, cause they would think the dev must be a reasonable guy and won't let his customers down for months.

This is where the current rating system comes into effect. I believe you can change your rating at any time (correct me if I'm wrong). If a developer disappears and no longer supports a product, change your rating to reflect that.

And because it doesn't happen very often, I am against anything that would restrict the honest developers based on the actions of a minority. It's already happened once with installation and site callbacks for licensing purposes and while I did comply with the requirements I wasn't happy with them. It required a completely new licensing system on my end, which to be honest is not as effective as the old system.

Changing the rating is a punishment from the side of a customer. That is already possible. But what I was talking about is that there is no punishment from XF. That is missing here. Changing the rating won't give my money back. It can help others to decide for the future, but for all who already purchased, it won't help. That's why there needs to be from XF controlled way of things, that this doesn't happen at all for anyone, at least to minimize that of situations to handfull of people.

Why do you see this as a restriction of honest developers? Where is the restriction by making you follow your agreements? There doesn't need to be any additional rules to define how devs should operate their stuff. You are still free whatever you want to sell and how you want to make your business model. BUT once you decide to do whatever you want to do, there should be a kind of guarantee that you will follow your promises/agreements. And as it looks right now, there are no punishments for you. You can go on as if nothing happened when you don't fullfill your agreements. That must change. (not saying you personally Snog are like this, I mean in general).

 

[Snog]

Why do you see this as a restriction of honest developers? Where is the restriction by making you follow your agreements? There doesn't need to be any additional rules to define how devs should operate their stuff. You are still free whatever you want to sell and how you want to make your business model. BUT once you decide to do whatever you want to do, there should be a kind of guarantee that you will follow your promises/agreements. And as it looks right now, there are no punishments for you. You can go on as if nothing happened when you don't fullfill your agreements. That must change. (not saying you personally Snog are like this, I mean in general).

I'm not taking any of this personally because I know none of the negative things mentioned in this thread apply to me.

What I was referring to was the requirement that was suggested earlier about developers having to come in periodically to verify their add-ons still worked with the current version (or the versions listed in the add-on).

I will say this, for good or bad, because of this thread I've changed my Updates Duration from 'Lifetime' to 'Lifetime for Compatible XF Versions Listed Above' for the simple reason when most of them were created XenForo 2.0 didn't exist. And to expect all add-ons to be updated to a completely different system is most likely not a reasonable expectation on anyone's part. If I find that 2.0 is not as bad for compatibility as I expect, I'll change it back. But for now, to be safe that's the route I'm going. I may decide to just let people upgrade to the 2.0 version, but if I do it will be my decision and not forced by any external policies.

 

[DieselMinded]

glad to see you guys discussing this, i have nothing to add other than...

reviews are not editable on this site

rather it be checking in of devs, a mod of the month program, auditing by xf staff

there is merit to this issue and multiple solutions have been brought up for concideration.

i love first party addons , they provide a sense of quality. maybe insted for xf competing with the best addons they just purchase them from the devs and make them "official" and maintain them there selves. I know this happens and i think it should happen more often

i suggest the purchase of nobita groups and auliats links directory both are top notch addons with good support, just buy them and make them first party

 

[Snog]

reviews are not editable on this site

On my development server, they can be edited by re-rating the add-on. The last review you posted for the current version is replaced by the new rating. That may be time limited, and I'll check that later today.

 

[sbj]

What I was referring to was the requirement that was suggested earlier about developers having to come in periodically to verify their add-ons still worked with the current version (or the versions listed in the add-on).

But this is not a restriction. How is that a restriction by making sure that you hold your promises? Cmon, with that scenario you would have 3 months (+extra 3 months) time for each addon. If you (in general) can't even support your addon for 6 months, then that is why exactly that addon shouldn't be listed anymore.

I will say this, for good or bad, because of this thread I've changed my Updates Duration from 'Lifetime' to 'Lifetime for Compatible XF Versions Listed Above' for the simple reason when most of them were created XenForo 2.0 didn't exist. And to expect all add-ons to be updated to a completely different system is most likely not a reasonable expectation on anyone's part. If I find that 2.0 is not as bad for compatibility as I expect, I'll change it back. But for now, to be safe that's the route I'm going. I may decide to just let people upgrade to the 2.0 version, but if I do it will be my decision and not forced by any external policies.

To be fair, no customer should expect that an addon should work also for XF 2.0. I also think devs should charge extra fees for their rewrite of their addons to make it compatible with 2.0. Cause technically this is not an upgrade anymore. A rewrite is involed, which makes the addon a new one. Of course basing it on the previous one, which why the extra fees shouldn't be that high for existing customers.

This situation is a bit nitpicky. I didn't want to make you change your license agreement. But to be on the safe side, that nobody exploits your license agreement, you did the right thing. By the way, you are one of the few devs who offer lifetime licenses. Thank you for that.

 

[Snog]

But this is not a restriction. How is that a restriction by making sure that you hold your promises? Cmon, with that scenario you would have 3 months (+extra 3 months) time for each addon. If you (in general) can't even support your addon for 6 months, then that is why exactly that addon shouldn't be listed anymore.

My point with this is that if an add-on has a version listed that it's compatible for, there should be no need to continually re-verify that information. It has nothing to do with support of the add-on. For example I do have add-ons (though not paid) that have not been updated since February of 2014 and they still chug happily along without needing an update. If they were paid, why should I need to come in an verify that it still works every X months?

Granted I'm usually here on a daily basis anyway, but updating an old add-on to say it still works is far from being on my mind.

By the way, you are one of the few devs who offer lifetime licenses. Thank you for that.

You're quite welcome!

 

[sbj]

My point with this is that if an add-on has a version listed that it's compatible for, there should be no need to continually re-verify that information. It has nothing to do with support of the add-on. For example I do have add-ons (though not paid) that have not been updated since February of 2014 and they still chug happily along without needing an update. If they were paid, why should I need to come in an verify that it still works every X months?

I see your point, but you miss out my point. It is not about to re-verify the information that it is compatible with a XF-version.
It is about to show people that you are around and you support your addons. Cause it forces the dev to show up in a recurring time period. If he doesn't, his resource gets deleted.
So users are protected.
And just because you state your addon is compatible for a xf-version, it doesn't mean it doesn't have bugs. It can happen that people report bugs to you and you just ignore this even though by agreement you have to solve the problems. Now by my method XF team doesn't have to read multiple pages to find out what is going on. If the counter of "this status update report is not true" is high, it makes it easily noticeable for XF team to see that a dev is not doing his job. And then XF team can intervene.
Every good in a market has to follow guidelines and standards. But because XF team can't audit every single code for every addon and update, the burden should be on the users. That is actually already the case. But what missing is, again mentioned multiple times, that devs don't have to fear any punishments right now.

Basically what I suggest is better protection for customers, that's it.

 

[TPerry]

Due diligence or not, it doesn't matter. Of course all human beings with a healthy working brain should make some research before they purchase something. BUT the blame is not on them if they don't do. For that we have LAWS. Everybody must follow them. You can't sell me rotten tomatoes and tell me that it is my problem that I hadn't check them. That is legally not allowed.

If the tomatoes are on display, and you see that they are rotten (read the discussion thread to see that there are issues) and you STILL purchase said tomatoes, then no, you don't have any protection. You got exactly what you paid for.... rotten tomatoes. It's not the vendors issue that you did not pay attention when purchasing them (unless you live in a nanny state where everything is done for you).

If you offer your addon for sale, then you must deliver. It is not my duty to check your credibility.

It IS your responsibility to make sure it meets YOUR NEEDS. If it doesn't, then it doesn't deliver. If you purchase an add-on with 12 months of support and you get your 12 months of support and then they halt cease support of that add-on, then they met expectations. It's NOT their responsibility to make sure the add-on meets YOUR requirements - that is your responsibility.

I am around for 3 years now. I am reading XF forums daily. Personally I hadn't any trouble here, but I see people coming and going and try to speak for them.

A word... don't try to speak for others, because frequently you will be incorrect. What you see is your interpretation of what they are saying - and language barriers can cause issues (classic case was your "meaning" support for a few months but your stating a 12 month support provided).

If there is no TOS guideline (which isn't there) and if the devs don't give statements about the expected response time, then what matters is the agreement. And the agreement states 1 year of support (in most of the cases).

And technically they could postpone any support until month 12. Nothing requires them to get a "fix" out on a set timeline (other than good coding/developing/business practices).

And disappearing for months is clearly against the agreement. It doesn't matter what the customer or the dev understands under "support". By disappearing there is technically no kind of support possible, no matter what that might be.

I think that's where you are having an issue... refer to my earlier post. There is no incumbency upon them to provide support at a set time... just within a specific window.
Now, again, good coding/developing/business practices indicate you want that to occur as quickly as possible - but it's not a requirement.

But there is no punishments for this behaviour. Devs can disappear whenever they want. They DO disappear. Look at the famous classifieds addon thread. Look what trouble those people are going through. Look what happened with crowdfundings in the past. Look about the situation of Daniel Hood. There are/were plenty of example that states how the real world is.

You play with crowd funding - you are likely to get burnt... hell, it happens with actual physical products also. I've seen several crowd funded products that received adequate funding that never panned out - usually because of technological issues.

If you decide to sell something, you are bound to the laws where the customers lives in. For example EU laws.

Doubtful... EU does not have any jurisdiction for items sold in the U.S. - which a number of add-on authors appear to be. If the transaction occurred in the EU you might have a leg to stand on - but if they are a US developer your EU laws cannot be enforced (even though they may wish that they could be - they aren't the world government).

So many would still purchase by knowing that the dev is not around, cause they would think the dev must be a reasonable guy and won't let his customers down for months.

Guess you've never heard the saying "Hope for the best, but expect the worst". If I'm looking at an add-on and have knowledge that the author hasn't been active for a month, I personally am not going to purchase said add-on as it's indicative of an issue.

But what I was talking about is that there is no punishment from XF. That is missing here. Changing the rating won't give my money back. It can help others to decide for the future, but for all who already purchased, it won't help. That's why there needs to be from XF controlled way of things, that this doesn't happen at all for anyone, at least to minimize that of situations to handfull of people.

Two words, two times
Caveat Emptor
Due Diligence

And as it looks right now, there are no punishments for you. You can go on as if nothing happened when you don't fullfill your agreements. That must change. (not saying you personally Snog are like this, I mean in general).

Pretty sure that there have been actions taken on developers that had "issues" with fulfilling agreements (or at least the warning of actions that would be taken if they weren't fulfilled).

 

[wang]

Due diligence or not, it doesn't matter. Of course all human beings with a healthy working brain should make some research before they purchase something. BUT the blame is not on them if they don't do. For that we have LAWS. Everybody must follow them. You can't sell me rotten tomatoes and tell me that it is my problem that I hadn't check them. That is legally not allowed.

Have you heard of the fine print? A lot of companies have that in tiny letters. So it is your duty to read it all very carefully before you purchase a product. If you purchase a product and it has a malinfunction of some sort that it is mentioned in the fine print, then there is nothing that you can do about that. There is no court in EU that would side with you. Their answer is, did you read the fine print? You say I did not. They say, well, tough luck, that will teach you to read them next time. Ok, not in those exactly words, but that is the message that you will receive.

 

[sbj]

Have you heard of the fine print? A lot of companies have that in tiny letters. So it is your duty to read it all very carefully before you purchase a product. If you purchase a product and it has a malinfunction of some sort that it is mentioned in the fine print, then there is nothing that you can do about that. There is no court in EU that would side with you. Their answer is, did you read the fine print? You say I did not. They say, well, tough luck, that will teach you to read them next time. Ok, not in those exactly words, but that is the message that you will receive.

Are you telling me that devs write down in their fine prints the bugs that their addon has?
Cause only in that case you are correct.
Show me 1 developer who does this.