CoffeeCake

Thank you for bringing this new feature to our attention, %AUTHOR%.
We will investigate the feature, and if we decide to implement it, we will do so in a future maintenance window.
Thanks again, %AUTHOR%!
⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐ How did we do? Rate our form letter and enter for a chance to win a t-shirt!

Hey I know a guy! @Mark, this might be of interest.

Hey I know a guy! @Mark, this might be of interest.

I've been with you since the days of Ikonboard, so you I love you. However, I'm starting to grow concerned after reading that IPS have made a specific, conscious decision to start restricting features (albeit with the first) to cloud-hosted SAAS customers. It's perhaps akin the to the controversial Marketplace changes. As a multi-license customer, I'm saddened that there is a visible "It's our way, or the highway" style approach that seems to be increasing these days.
This statement feels like it could be the start of a paradigm shift, and if so, one that I'm concerned is edging gradually towards a pretty slippery slope. I'm concerned that a moment of realisation will inevitably follow such a shift, where more of the latest, long awaited or most requested features could no longer be available to self-hosted clients.
I realise with SAAS you have more or even total overall control of the environment which is good from a support perspective, and it's been stated that if you could have a do-over with today's tech, SAAS would be the way to go from the outset.
SAAS certainly has its benefits, to both sides of the provider/customer fence, don't get me wrong, but I still find the cloud-hosted IPS on offer here (which as your main showcase, it should be super slick, speedier than The Flash using a bathroom and instantly responsive), to be more sluggish and generally slower than many self-hosted sites I come across; even though I'm using a 40Mbps fibre connection (thanks rip off, overselling BT, I'm still paying for that 80Mbps Infinity 2 connection, you know... yeah, that's right, you hear me!).
And then there's this risk, it does happen...

On the way to the point where more features are restricted, how many restricted features will it take before self-hosted clients begin to feel like they are getting the light version or feel less valued. The software is expensive (aside from a couple of the recurring add-ons which a fairly priced), self-hosted clients money is of course just as good as that of SAAS clients, and after all, wasn't it the self-hosted user base that helped get IPS to where it is today? So I would ask IPS to at least consider this approach and also, if you propose removing lesser used large features from products (like Commerce) that's fine but please don't forget to reduce the price accordingly.
Thanks for listening.

This is a bit of a slap in the face to self hosted clients. Nothing to celebrate here. 👎

While good in theory, this doesn't work at scale, isn't transparent, and doesn't promote accountability. IPS has much room for improvement here in surfacing the built in support request functionality for use between members and moderators/staff. We've done this through customization on our community and I think focusing on the places in IPS where members have touchpoints with staff would reveal a number of opportunities to improve that engagement.
Think about reporting content (one way communication), the warning system (one way communication), and what's available to converse with members from a team standpoint that offers two-way back and forth.
A notable gap, that we could speak to in depth about.

While good in theory, this doesn't work at scale, isn't transparent, and doesn't promote accountability. IPS has much room for improvement here in surfacing the built in support request functionality for use between members and moderators/staff. We've done this through customization on our community and I think focusing on the places in IPS where members have touchpoints with staff would reveal a number of opportunities to improve that engagement.
Think about reporting content (one way communication), the warning system (one way communication), and what's available to converse with members from a team standpoint that offers two-way back and forth.
A notable gap, that we could speak to in depth about.

I feel personally attacked. And this time it was in English. 😅

Jordan - Congrats
Matt - What does this position actually mean for clients?  How will he triage, prioritize, and escalate client feedback to the IPS team, all of whom can and do visit the forums themselves? What are the parameters for clients to help highlight and channel our feedback in an effective manner?  And finally, as a community advocate, what does he actually advocate?  Whom does he represent, and to what extent?  
Until the company articulates - and the community can validate - these above questions, this new position is entirely aspirational.  
Invision has attempted multiple community engagement tactics over the years.  And I have a long history of memory:
I remember IPS Release Notes when Charles said you were going to provide a roadmap.  That quietly disappeared and failed.  I remember Tagging when Lindy said you were going to tag the status of features.  That quietly disappeared and failed.   I remember how you removed Pre-Sales and merged Feedback from all product lines together.  Product Feedback is now a mess.   I remember how you recently launched a Slack channel for Marketplace devs.  How is that going?   I genuinely and honestly don't mind you guys trying new things - that's great.  Every community (and company) should always be experimenting and launching new initiatives.  But the past history of your community engagement is littered with no follow through.  How is this time different?    
To be blunt and on behalf of all of your retail clients, we don't need a Community Advocate to post memes.  We need a Community Advocate with the power to deliver and communicate on meaningful actions to drive our communities forward.

I see you haven't been through the corporate harassment and cultural sensitivity training yet, Mr. Invision. 😉

I see you haven't been through the corporate harassment and cultural sensitivity training yet, Mr. Invision. 😉

Absolutely a must. 

The only thing I ask is that this is not enabled by default (i.e. automatically active after the upgrade). Please set it to "off" by default and those who need it can be told how to switch it on.
This should have been done for various editing notifications in the 4.5 upgrade for example. Instead I had to go hunting to find out how to switch off things I never wanted on in the first place (and had set the previous incarnation to "off" before IPS switched them "on" again without permission).
I understand you wanting to demonstrate your coding, but these actions are not useful and sometimes even detrimental.
Thanks!

This is a fantastic addition, and we were actually beginning development on this as an extension to the suite. Our use case is exactly the type of case as in the example included in the announcement.
What would be a wonderful feature (if not already included) is the ability to set a particular forum in such a manner that the thread author is always anonymous (either by default, or by enforced policy), including any replies.

@Morgin for president. Actually, if not already, this should be a setting that can be toggled as available for as long as the edit window is open.

I love this feature. Agree with @Paul E. above that forcing OP to be anon would be helpful. An alternative would be to ensure that moderators can go the other direction as well, i.e. in addition to revealing who the OP was and de-anonymizing, it would be great if there was a setting for mods to edit a post and change to anonymous. We often have members who join to post a question that can sometimes reveal highly personal info and it’s fine when they think it’s a one off question, then they decide to stay (because our community is so great) and become a long time member. That usually prompts a PM asking if we can go back and remove some personal info they posted when they didn’t think through the implications. Would love to use this tool as an easy anonymizer for that type of content. 

This is a fantastic addition, and we were actually beginning development on this as an extension to the suite. Our use case is exactly the type of case as in the example included in the announcement.
What would be a wonderful feature (if not already included) is the ability to set a particular forum in such a manner that the thread author is always anonymous (either by default, or by enforced policy), including any replies.