This will be my final post in this discussion, and it will be a longer one.
I believe that I have now explained my arguments clearly, and most of them have at least been answered in part.
@Doekse has stated clearly that threads are closed when they drift away from their original topic. That is presented as a forum rule. However, I have also shown that he himself sometimes participates in such side discussions and may underestimate how easily a reply from another user can naturally lead a conversation in a different direction.
We are repeatedly asked to remain strictly focused on the original subject, but this overlooks the fact that we are human beings with social needs.
In my professional life, I encountered a similar strategy that was often called a “speed meeting.” A meeting was limited to one narrowly defined subject and perhaps twenty minutes. The limited time was intended to prevent side discussions and lengthy explanations and to force everyone to remain focused.
I rarely saw companies succeed with that approach.
Human success depends on building relationships, empathy and, in the best case, mutual sympathy. I would like to illustrate that with an anecdote from my professional life.
Once, I spent two hours in a meeting because technical equipment that we had recommended to a client did not meet requirements that the client had only formulated after placing the order.
I left the meeting without a technical solution and without even a workable compromise.
Later, during a coffee break, I met a young colleague. We spoke about the weather, her holidays and other completely unrelated matters. In doing so, we renewed the social connection between us.
At some point, she asked how my project was progressing, and I explained the problem to her in a few simple words.
She had no deep involvement in the project and therefore brought a fresh outside perspective. She simply said:
“Who even wants such an old-fashioned conference system today? Modern conferences are more like events, with multiple video streams, scene lighting and speakers moving in front of the screen.”
That was the moment everything became clear.
I invited the client to attend a modern conference. Afterwards, I noticed a painful expression on his face and asked him what was wrong.
He replied:
“After seeing this, I want exactly that. But our brand-new and expensive equipment cannot even deliver our original, old-fashioned requirements. Now I am even more disappointed.”
I answered:
“No, sir. Your equipment is advanced enough to do exactly what you have just seen, and potentially to do it even better.”
The point of this story is that remaining strictly focused on the original technical problem did not produce the solution.
The solution came through a social interaction, an apparently irrelevant conversation, a less technical but more practical perspective and a colleague who felt enough sympathy and interest to help.
We build similar connections here.
We develop sympathy for one another, exchange experiences and become willing to help other users, and sometimes even the company behind a system that many of us genuinely appreciate.
Yes, this naturally creates side discussions. We exchange ideas, explore possibilities and see where the conversation leads. We make suggestions and ask others what they think. Some of us also exchange private messages containing findings from reverse engineering, packet captures, traffic analysis and other technical investigations.
That is not a weakness of a community. It is one of its greatest strengths.
What hurts deeply is when support or staff members interpret such developments as negativity, conspiracy theories or unproductive discussion.
The same applies when certain users enter serious discussions primarily to defend the company, dismiss the reported experiences of others or provoke the participants instead of contributing anything useful.
One example is the repeated accusation that posts are AI-generated.
In other discussions, it has already been explained to the same person that I am not a native English speaker and that I use AI to translate, structure and improve the English expression of my own thoughts. The arguments, experiences and opinions remain mine.
Nevertheless, the same accusation is repeated again and again, as though punctuation or polished English somehow invalidates the content.
Instead of closing entire discussions because they have developed beyond their original narrow subject, moderators should intervene when individual users contribute nothing except provocation, personal attacks or comments intended to derail and hurt a serious conversation.
Despite everything that has happened, I have formed new connections through this discussion, and I believe some of them will survive this unfortunate situation.
What I regret most is not simply that one thread was closed using arguments that I find inconsistent.
What I regret most is that my enthusiasm for Homey is beginning to disappear.
The energy I am willing to invest in developing for this platform has already fallen to a minimum. I have always been driven by curiosity, new challenges and the desire to build something useful. But that curiosity does not disappear when one platform becomes frustrating; it simply begins to look for new horizons.
My interest is increasingly being drawn towards other systems, other technologies and communities where technical curiosity, constructive criticism and voluntary contributions feel more welcome and appreciated.
That is perhaps the most unfortunate consequence of all this. Homey is not only at risk of losing a dissatisfied user. It is at risk of losing someone who genuinely believed in the concept, developed five apps for the platform and was still willing to invest time, knowledge and enthusiasm in helping it improve.
A system is ultimately only as good as the people, culture and values behind it. And when confidence in those begins to fade, enthusiasm for the technology itself eventually follows.
