@no1marauder saidI disagree with this, and I have said as much in private forums.
I'd prefer non-subscribers have less influence over Debates not more. Perhaps they should be limited to a certain number of posts and/or participation in a limited number of threads per week/month.
Many of the most toxic and disruptive posters in Debates have no "skinny" in the game and some periodically start new usernames. It would be nice if something was done to control these problems.
I don't think that whether someone is a subscriber should influence the application of any new rules for moderation. This implies that subscribing would allow a poster to get away with something that a non-sub would not when they really should not be connected. It would be analogous to the wealthy being treated differently by the law by being punished less harshly for the same crime.
Making treatment different for subscribers on something unrelated to chess like the debates forum makes the site look bad by making it seem as though they only care about profit. That could cause un-subs on principle and deter people from subbing. I honestly don't believe that people's posting behaviour would change by becoming a subscriber or by unsubscribing.
I have always subscribed. It's not that I particularly need or want the extra features, but I like to support a site that I get enjoyment from. However, I don't believe the solution to solving the toxicity in the debates forum should be tied to money. There are plenty of good writers who are non-subs, and plenty of bad ones who are. Applying restrictions to all non-subs for the sake of curbing a few bad eggs (I'm sure you can imagine whom I am thinking of) wouldn't be very nice.
- Joined
- 08 Jun 20
- Moves
- 1953
1 edit
@Soothfast
I can think of 3 guys who say things that are that bad to warrant this shutdown.
I went to their profiles and none have been banned so hopefully it's just an upgrade and not a lengthy shutdown.
I like those guys to be honest.
I hate some but I still like the ones I hate.
People are too sensitive.
Isn't ad revenue based on people who actually click on the ads?
@uglytoproll saidDid you count yourself?
@Soothfast
I can think of 3 guys who say things that are that bad to warrant this shutdown.
I went to their profiles and none have been banned so hopefully it's just an upgrade and not a lengthy shutdown.
I like those guys to be honest.
I hate some but I still like the ones I hate.
People are too sensitive.
Isn't ad revenue based on people who actually click on the ads?
- Joined
- 08 Jun 20
- Moves
- 1953
@soothfast saidNo I state actual facts that most are scared to admit lest they appear racist.
Did you count yourself?
My comments didn't cause this.
It was most likely the comments involving sexual references or any type of violence.
- Joined
- 08 Jun 20
- Moves
- 1953
1 edit
@Soothfast
I pay way too much to even be considered a problem.
Pick any member here and I have paid 10 times more cash to the site.
I get a pass.
Multi-Subscriber priviledge.
@uglytoproll saidYou often boast about your multiple subscriptions but don't you just subscribe 1 month at a time, and then jump accounts?
@Soothfast
I pay way too much to even be considered a problem.
Pick any member here and I have paid 10 times more cash to the site.
I get a pass.
Multi-Subscriber priviledge.
@ashiitaka saidThere's already all kinds of restrictions on non-subs; they can only play a limited number of games, they can't play in tournaments, they can't join clans and on and on. I see no reason why their posting privileges shouldn't be limited as well.
I disagree with this, and I have said as much in private forums.
I don't think that whether someone is a subscriber should influence the application of any new rules for moderation. This implies that subscribing would allow a poster to get away with something that a non-sub would not when they really should not be connected. It would be analogous to the wealthy being tr ...[text shortened]... ke of curbing a few bad eggs (I'm sure you can imagine whom I am thinking of) wouldn't be very nice.
No one suggested different penalties for posting violations, so that is a red herring.
- Joined
- 08 Jun 20
- Moves
- 1953
1 edit
@ghost-of-a-duke saidThe one month feature is new and for the google app.
You often boast about your multiple subscriptions but don't you just subscribe 1 month at a time, and then jump accounts?
I just found out about it.
No I'm a 50/50 type.
Sometimes a 3 month sub and sometimes a year sub.
I usually last a month maybe two.
It adds up.
One week I bought 3 one year memberships.
3 bans in a week!...must be a record or something.
They kept the cash...
They must have reached a point where they decided to stop banning and watch the cash roll in.
It's small relatively speaking but I am positive I paid for Russ' Rolex watch.
@no1marauder said1. You wrote that non-subs should be limited to a certain number of posts per week. Imagine you are having a debate with, say, KN. Mid-discussion, KN runs out of weekly posts. Oops! The discussion is over - better come back next week (or month!), by which time the thread is gone. Would you enjoy that?
There's already all kinds of restrictions on non-subs; they can only play a limited number of games, they can't play in tournaments, they can't join clans and on and on. I see no reason why their posting privileges shouldn't be limited as well.
No one suggested different penalties for posting violations, so that is a red herring.
2. The chess privileges don't affect the community that is the debates forum. The debates forum only survives because there is a critical mass of good posters who keep it worthwhile to read. Why should posters like KazetNagorra, DeepThought, HandyAndy, sh76, Soothfast or Teinosuke be punished because they happen to share an unrelated characteristic (being a non-sub) with a few bad eggs? That's one way to kill the community.
3. The requirement for subbing wouldn't stop notorious trolls like the Canadian guy or AverageJoe. It's just not a good filtration mechanism to reduce toxicity - it is much easier to just be more firm on the bans or moderation.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@no1marauder saidI agree.
I'd prefer non-subscribers have less influence over Debates not more. Perhaps they should be limited to a certain number of posts and/or participation in a limited number of threads per week/month.
Many of the most toxic and disruptive posters in Debates have no "skinny" in the game and some periodically start new usernames. It would be nice if something was done to control these problems.
- Joined
- 08 Jun 20
- Moves
- 1953
1 edit
@Ashiitaka
The Canadian Guy.
I like that 🤔
...Notorious
I like that too.
I am imagining my troops marching...
@ashiitaka saidI suggest you reread my post; I already suggested a solution to your hypothetical i.e. that non-subs could have participation in x number of threads.
1. You wrote that non-subs should be limited to a certain number of posts per week. Imagine you are having a debate with, say, KN. Mid-discussion, KN runs out of weekly posts. Oops! The discussion is over - better come back next week (or month!), by which time the thread is gone. Would you enjoy that?
2. The chess privileges don't affect the community that is the debate ...[text shortened]... ion mechanism to reduce toxicity - it is much easier to just be more firm on the bans or moderation.
There's a "critical mass" of posters making the Forum virtually unreadable and most are non-subs. They have little incentive to moderate their behavior under present circumstances. Extensive forum moderation is simply impracticable on this site which relies on a limited number of volunteer mods.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@ashiitaka saidThis is not a "Donations Only" site.
I disagree with this, and I have said as much in private forums.
I don't think that whether someone is a subscriber should influence the application of any new rules for moderation. This implies that subscribing would allow a poster to get away with something that a non-sub would not when they really should not be connected. It would be analogous to the wealthy being tr ...[text shortened]... ke of curbing a few bad eggs (I'm sure you can imagine whom I am thinking of) wouldn't be very nice.
I do not believe that subscribers should be rendered to mere donor status.
It's fair and good business for non-subscribers to have access. It's fair that they can play chess for free and may post in the forums. But it's not fair that they become habitually abusive and taunting while others are paying the bills.
Ultimately, it's about getting a service for which one chooses to pay.
If I want better song selections on Spotify, I must pay.
If I want to read the New York Times, I must pay.
If I want to attend a Futbol match, I must pay.
In doing so, I am supporting the continued existence of those institutions. Additionally, by doing so, I am not excluding others' their right to choose lesser options.
- Joined
- 06 Nov 15
- Moves
- 41301
@uglytoproll saidYou Sir, have become a parasite. You need to go.
Elimination of non subs!
Rise up! Eliminate the non subs!
You and your many aliases have exploited the kindness of this site's ownership for far too long.