02 Jul '20 20:13>2 edits
@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.