4 ms·

> An automatic upgrade within 7 days that triples in price is sleazy, there's no two ways to look at it There are two ways to look at it. I use a tool that rep

> An automatic upgrade within 7 days that triples in price is sleazy, there's no two ways to look at it There are two ways to look at it. I use a tool that reports errors in my web app. After one of releases we started receiving a lot of errors and we reached the maximum on our plan. What would the proper response be? To just block all the incoming error reports until end of the month? Or maybe to send me an email saying "hey, you've reached your limit, if this continues we'll upgrade you to higher plan automatically"? There's no clear answer here, that depends on your context (I used the app for work and having proper error reports was more important than the cost for me), but there are two ways to look at it. > respond with what is apparently vitriolic rage not defending CEO's response (it was very inappropriate), aren't you doing the same right now? You're retweeting stuff like "F* Ghost and F* their CEO" with their accounts tagged.

postapathy 6y ago
What a load of nonsense to justify a shady practice, to be quite honest. If this was necessary, other website builders would be doing this. Apparently, they all fare well without it. > CEO directly cusses out and then wipes a customer's website > I retweet a post saying "f* Ghost" > you are the same!! yes, all things are now in balance in the universe!
- arnvald 6y ago
  > If this was necessary, other website builders would be doing this I didn't said it was necessary, I've only said there are 2 ways to look at. > you are the same!! Again, something I didn't say. I said you are doing the same about the "vitrolic rage" response, not about deleting the site. CEO's actions were inappropriate and unprofessional, and I do not defend him here, it is unacceptable to delete client's content (and as I wrote in another comment under this post, it makes me feel uneasy as their client). What I'm saying is that this whole thing blew out of proportion and neither action justified the next one - the email didn't justify the outrage; the outrage didn't justify deleting content; deleting content didn't justify spreading hateful tweets.
realmod 6y ago
I can definitely see why having soft limits for error reports and views is acceptable and perhaps encouraged. But this complaint was about the soft limit on staff accounts; adding new members requires active engagement which would be a perfect place to inform users that they are going over the limits. And asking for a warning on such actions or a hard limit is definitely reasonable, but they instead chose to just send a warning email knowing that emails could be and are overlooked(perhaps to increase conversion) - which is definitively shady.

postapathy 6y ago

What a load of nonsense to justify a shady practice, to be quite honest. If this was necessary, other website builders would be doing this. Apparently, they all fare well without it. > CEO directly cusses out and then wipes a customer's website > I retweet a post saying "f* Ghost" > you are the same!! yes, all things are now in balance in the universe!

arnvald 6y ago
> If this was necessary, other website builders would be doing this I didn't said it was necessary, I've only said there are 2 ways to look at. > you are the same!! Again, something I didn't say. I said you are doing the same about the "vitrolic rage" response, not about deleting the site. CEO's actions were inappropriate and unprofessional, and I do not defend him here, it is unacceptable to delete client's content (and as I wrote in another comment under this post, it makes me feel uneasy as their client). What I'm saying is that this whole thing blew out of proportion and neither action justified the next one - the email didn't justify the outrage; the outrage didn't justify deleting content; deleting content didn't justify spreading hateful tweets.

realmod 6y ago

I can definitely see why having soft limits for error reports and views is acceptable and perhaps encouraged. But this complaint was about the soft limit on staff accounts; adding new members requires active engagement which would be a perfect place to inform users that they are going over the limits. And asking for a warning on such actions or a hard limit is definitely reasonable, but they instead chose to just send a warning email knowing that emails could be and are overlooked(perhaps to increase conversion) - which is definitively shady.