@ashiitaka saidDo you believe in speed limits?
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.
@no1marauder saidAs a non-subscriber (former subscriber) I'd 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.
No pay, no say.
In contradiction to that here are my thoughts ...
As has been said many posts are obnoxious and offensive but that really is
the penalty for "free speech". The problem I have is the sheer volume of
these posts. The racist rantings could be contained in one or two posts but
we see new posts each day (by the usual suspects). Compare this with the
Brexit debates. Heated as it was the debate remained mostly on one or two
threads allowing users to choose whether or not they visited that thread.
I don't know what the solution is but to my mind that is the problem; volume.
@no1marauder saidI suggest you re-read your own post:
I 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.
There's a "critical mass" of posters making the Forum virtually unreadable and most are non-subs. They have little incentive to moderate their under present circumstances. Extensive forum moderation is simply impracticable on this site which relies on a limited number of volunteer mods.
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.
Not the best idea, is it?
There's a "critical mass" of posters making the Forum virtually unreadable and most are non-subs. They have little incentive to moderate under present circumstances. Extensive forum moderation is simply impracticable on this site which relies on a limited number of volunteer mods.
Punishing a whole group of people who share some arbitrary characteristic! Hmm.... sounds a bit like punishing all Muslims because of the actions of a few, etc.
Not the best idea, is it?
Of course, the simple solution is to moderate on an individual basis without regard to subscription status.
@wolfe63 saidI do not believe that subscribers should be rendered to mere donor status.
This is not a "Donations Only" site.
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 abo ...[text shortened]... tutions. Additionally, by doing so, I am not excluding others' their right to choose lesser options.
They aren't. They get privileges for being a subscriber.
But it's not fair that they become habitually abusive and taunting while others are paying the bills.
Being a bad person isn't unique to non-subs, and something targeting non-subs would stop just as many good posts as bad ones. There are other, more targeted, options.
@ashiitaka saidDo you know what "and/or" means?
I suggest you re-read your own post:
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.
Not the best idea, is it?
[b]There's a "critical mass" of posters making the Forum virtually unreadable and most are n ...[text shortened]... se, the simple solution is to moderate on an individual basis without regard to subscription status.
I'm not playing the "it's just like when they fed the Christians to the lions!" game. There are good reasons to limit the privileges of those who want to use a site for free and equally good reasons to suppose they would not have the same incentives for good behavior that a subscriber would. This is not a case of irrational, invidious discrimination.
@wolfgang59 saidThere are only a few really prolific ones. It would be simple to ban them either temporarily or permanently.
As a non-subscriber (former subscriber) I'd agree.
No pay, no say.
In contradiction to that here are my thoughts ...
As has been said many posts are obnoxious and offensive but that really is
the penalty for "free speech". The problem I have is the sheer volume of
these posts. The racist rantings could be contained in one or two posts but
we see new posts eac ...[text shortened]... isited that thread.
I don't know what the solution is but to my mind that is the problem; volume.
I don't see a reason to implement a sweeping system affecting people that it should not. What would be attempting to improve readability would also severely damage it by limiting many posters who are worth reading.
@no1marauder saidBoth of those ideas lead to different yet still obviously sub-optimal outcomes. Of course, "and/or" doesn't change the fact that you suggested it.
Do you know what "and/or" means?
I'm not playing the "it's just like when they fed the Christians to the lions!" game. There are good reasons to limit the privileges of those who want to use a site for free and equally good reasons to suppose they would not have the same incentives for good behavior that a subscriber would. This is not a case of irrational, invidious discrimination.
There are good reasons to limit the privileges of those who want to use a site for free and equally good reasons to suppose they would not have the same incentives for good behavior that a subscriber would.
Please give these mysterious reasons. Has it stopped Joe or the Canadian guy? I have never once, not ever, considered the fact that I am a subscriber when writing a post, and if anything, I'd feel I could get away with MORE because I am a paying member which would constitute a loss to the site if banned. How you do reconcile this obvious flaw?
Their privileges are already limited. But hey, let's kill the forum with shortsightedness.
@uglytoproll saidThat was not sarcasm. I would like the right to report posts.
Your sarcasm is brilliant and it's hilarious when some don't see the sarcasm.
Eladar for President!
Most of the time it is sarcasm, but I like the update.
@ashiitaka saidI see you holding your breath until you turn blue, not any "obvious flaw".
Both of those ideas lead to different yet still obviously sub-optimal outcomes. Of course, "and/or" doesn't change the fact that you suggested it.
There are good reasons to limit the privileges of those who want to use a site for free and equally good reasons to suppose they would not have the same incentives for good behavior that a subscriber would.
Please g ...[text shortened]... flaw?
Their privileges are already limited. But hey, let's kill the forum with shortsightedness.
If you pay for something, it has value for you. You would tend to keep the value of the thing as high as possible to get your money's worth.
There's no countervailing incentive for someone using a site for free. If they thought the site was valuable, they'd pay for it.
Limiting subs posting would give them an incentive to pony up if they really thought unlimited posting here had worth.
It's good economics not to encourage free riders.