Resticting Non-Subscribers

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Drag and drop (DND) = Put mouse pointer on a piece, then hold down the left mouse button while moving the piece to the destination square. Releasing the button completes the move. (Although, on a corr. site, I agree with having the 'submit move' button.)

It's the default system for virtually all the chess software that I use (ICC's BlitzIn, FICS' B ...[text shortened]... espondence sites.

I've heard rumors that RHP may implement a DND option in the future.

That's a big deal to you?? I use BabaChess on FICS and I didn't even notice the difference. I'd say it's completely trivial.

Originally posted by Delmer
At least subscribers invest in the site and have something to lose. Non-subscribers do not invest in the site and have nothing to lose.

While I disagree with your anti-non-sub stance, you have a point there. I believe that those non-subscribers who are part of the community also have something to lose - if I would be thrown off the site, the loss of money would be what would hurt least. But it's possible to register with the sole purpose to spam, and it's possible for those spammers to come back again and again and again without losing anything. If those people would have to pay up each time they opened a new account, this certainly wouldn't happen. So I see the need to do something about this, but on the other hand, I really don't think it's a good idea to limit the rights of a whole group because of those very few spammers. That's giving them much too much power.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Spammers and multi-account abusers are the enemy, not non-subs. Remember the 'windmill' account? Looks like it is numbered amongst the JoniG/LazyKnight/AmericanEagle dupes. 'windmill' was a subscriber.

I'd like to broaden the definition of "enemies" on this site to whomever the arrogance squad here determines to be lower than their class. Of course, because of their pretentious attitudes, they could concievably try and act more superior than anyone really...

Originally posted by Nordlys
While I disagree with your anti-non-sub stance, you have a point there. I believe that those non-subscribers who are part of the community also have something to lose - if I would be thrown off the site, the loss of money would be what would hurt least. But it's possible to register with the sole purpose to spam, and it's possible for those spammers to come a whole group because of those very few spammers. That's giving them much too much power.

I'm not anti-non-sub. I make a point of playing all the non-subs who challenge me in hopes they'll become subscribers. I just think a reasonable period in which to play some games and judge the site should be enacted. I also see no reason for them to be able to post in the forums. (This thread has been a classic example of that.) Let them read the forums and if the forums generate enough interest that they want to post then maybe they'll subscribe. After all, we're only talking about $30 a year here, not hundreds of dollars.

Originally posted by Nargaguna
What else did you expect? He's a socialist.

So constantly spanking you in debates, putting huge holes in your bigot theories and shooting down your half arsed dribble in these forums makes me a socialist? Whatever Susan...

Originally posted by Delmer
Take note, Russ. Esoteric considers spending money for a subscription to Red Hot Pawn a stupid expenditure. And he can continue expressing his opinion forever in the forums for free. Ah, the irony of modern technology.

Delmer, when will you stop creating fictitious sh** in these forums just to back you up? Seriously, when did I ever say a RHP subscription was a stupid expenditure. Seriously, PLEASE bring some intelligence to your posts, otherwise it feels like I’m arguing with a chimp.

Originally posted by Delmer
At least subscribers invest in the site and have something to lose. Non-subscribers do not invest in the site and have nothing to lose.

Your point is completely irrelevant because subscribers like STANG and windmill still get banned for various and sundry abusive behavior. The $30 subscription is not a deterrent to abusers at all. How could it be? I spent $24 on lunch today. I could easily shrug off the loss of $30.

Furthermore, I seem to recall that banned players got a refund of their money. If it's really true, then subs also have 'nothing' (i.e. no money) to lose.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That's a big deal to you?? I use BabaChess on FICS and I didn't even notice the difference. I'd say it's completely trivial.

It's not a BIG deal, but once I found a site that did offer it, it was too tempting to go play over there.

Originally posted by Delmer
I'm not anti-non-sub. I make a point of playing all the non-subs who challenge me in hopes they'll become subscribers. I just think a reasonable period in which to play some games and judge the site should be enacted. I also see no reason for them to be able to post in the forums.

I'm curious Delmer, why are you trying to hurt the site by attempting to run off potential customers? Who are currently generating revenue in their own way for Russ? Your attitude is detrimental to the site.

Also, what difference does it make to you if somebody chooses to pay or not? Does it affect your enjoyment of the site for somebody in India, or some other country where $30 is a lot, to play up to 6 games with people from around the world? Again, you're hurting the site through your attitude to these people who may not be able to subscribe, but possibly show their appreciation greatly, through clicking the adverts.

On your point regarding non-subs being allowed to post in the forums. What if a new member needs some help? Do you want Russ to be swamped with thousands of trivial questions, or would you prefer the community to field the questions and let Russ on with the important work of developing the site?

D

Originally posted by Esoteric
Delmer, when will you stop creating fictitious sh** in these forums just to back you up? Seriously, when did I ever say a RHP subscription was a stupid expenditure. Seriously, PLEASE bring some intelligence to your posts, otherwise it feels like I’m arguing with a chimp.

"Maybe I have alot more fulfilling life than yours and I’d rather spend my money wisely instead of acting holier than thou on a chess site old man."

So then you've changed your mind? Or is a non-wise expenditure not a stupid expenditure?

Originally posted by Ragnorak
I'm curious Delmer, why are you trying to hurt the site by attempting to run off potential customers? Who are currently generating revenue in their own way for Russ? Your attitude is detrimental to the site.

Also, what difference does it make to you if somebody chooses to pay or not? Does it affect your enjoyment of the site for somebody in India, or ...[text shortened]... to field the questions and let Russ on with the important work of developing the site?

D

Okay, Rags. I surrender. Let's all become non-subscribers.

Originally posted by Delmer

Or is a non-wise expenditure not a stupid expenditure?

Yes it clearly isn't. A stupid expenditure would be spending $200 on a haircut, a non wise expenditure would be buying something you don’t really need when you have other things which are more important to a individuals monetary situation.