@wolfe63said 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.
Ads bring in money, If everyone subscribed there’s be no ads. Non-subs get 12 games and that’s it, I don’t think the forums should have any subscriber only features. If someone calls you a stupid cracker, you’d want to alert that.
@no1maraudersaid I see you holding your breath until you turn blue, not any "obvious flaw".
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 post ...[text shortened]... eally thought unlimited posting here had worth.
It's good economics not to encourage free riders.
I'd like to see a $20 per year plan here that simply unlocks all forum privileges, and nothing else. No extra chess games, no tournaments, etc. I'd readily pay for that.
@soothfastsaid I'd like to see a $20 per year plan here that simply unlocks all forum privileges, and nothing else. No extra chess games, no tournaments, etc. I'd readily pay for that.
@no1maraudersaid I see you holding your breath until you turn blue, not any "obvious flaw".
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 post ...[text shortened]... eally thought unlimited posting here had worth.
It's good economics not to encourage free riders.
I see you holding your breath until you turn blue, not any "obvious flaw".
So you have no point. Good to know.
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.
The whole point of your idea to limit non-subs was to act as a natural filtration mechanism to prevent overwork of the mods re banning and moderation. In order for banning of subs to be any kind of deterrent (i.e. be effective at changing behaviour due to the risk of loss), there would have to be enough banning to set a precedent. In other words, they would have to invest more anyway, at which point the whole sub/non-sub thing becomes pointless - they have the resources to moderate on an individual basis. That's not to mention that any deterring effect that had would have to counteract the sense of confidence that subscribers get from the knowledge that banning them is a financial loss to the site, which non-subs do not get.
@no1maraudersaid I see you holding your breath until you turn blue, not any "obvious flaw".
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 post ...[text shortened]... eally thought unlimited posting here had worth.
It's good economics not to encourage free riders.
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.
Ahh, so now you are pivoting away from your evident belief that discriminating against non-subs would improve the quality of the forum (it wouldn't) and instead are saying that everyone should have to pay. I'm sure the site managers know their model better than you do, and that there exists a non-sub option for a reason. And there's no reason to believe that trying to force people into paying would actually lead to a positive outcome for the site - how many people would they lose once the forums (the self-described "heart of the community" ) started becoming depopulated because of absurd and illogical posting rules?
@no1maraudersaid I see you holding your breath until you turn blue, not any "obvious flaw".
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 post ...[text shortened]... eally thought unlimited posting here had worth.
It's good economics not to encourage free riders.
I was a sub to this site for almost a decade between 2008 and about 2016.
I canceled my sub when my interest in chess waned. If and when it comes back, I'll consider re-subscribing.
Self-serving though it may sound, it's clearly in the best interest of RHP to keep people like me as part of the community.
I'd sub for the benefit of a better chess experience. But to sub for better posting rights? I don't think so. If the site made it not worthwhile for non-subs, I'd simply find another of the 12 zillion message boards out there and be less likely to sub if my chess interest every strengthens.
@russsaid When it returns, the process for alerting posts will be improved and open to all, rather than just subscribers.
I would encourage all to alert posts that they find objectionable when it returns.
Seems like censorship to me. What is objectionable is a matter of opinion. What is the criteria for objectionable? I'm sure you could find at least one person that found my "Lying Fauci" thread objectionable because of partisan leanings alone. Despite the fact that I voted for Jill Stein rather than Trump I was falsely accused of being a Trumpite or some other weird term. I have never been a Trump supporter. As soon as I found out he picked Pence as his Veep I knew he was told who to pick just like Obama was told to pick Biden, the guy who overtly said he would resort to a constitutional amendment to end busing.
Why is the debates forum suspended? Poor taste has been there forever. Why now?
Why have RFK jr.'s allegations been ignored by the corporate news media? They are very serious allegations. Is RFK jr. right or wrong?
Don't we all deserve the answer? If it is true we need to know. If it is not true we need to know RFK jr. is wrong. This at least deserved mention and a fact check. Why didn't we get that? Why are we still not getting that?
Debates forum suspended temporarily
02 Jul '20 22:41
Back to Top