Bowmann should be banned

Originally posted by Peachy
who thinks Bowmann should subscribe?

a great YES

I don't think that Bowmann needs to be singled out and banned for his forum conduct. I do think he ought to subscribe though, as should the originator of this post; I'd go one further and recommend that the forums would benefit from only subscribers having posting rights to them.

Originally posted by Exy
I'd go one further and recommend that the forums would benefit from only subscribers having posting rights to them.

i suspect that the overall quality of the forums (presently dismally low) would improve at least a little if this step were taken. rec.

Originally posted by dfm65
i suspect that the overall quality of the forums (presently dismally low) would improve at least a little if this step were taken. rec.

How so?

Originally posted by dfm65
i suspect that the overall quality of the forums (presently dismally low) would improve at least a little if this step were taken. rec.

It would be so much fun to have a forum with no one to speak to. May as well have a picnic with no sausage rolls eh dude? 😛

Originally posted by darvlay
How so?

People tend to be less disrespectful towards something that they have paid for.

Originally posted by darvlay
How so?

i've been keeping detailed records of all the posts here in the general forum over the past three years, as part of a sociological study i have been conducting on behalf of a client i cannot name. i kept records of the poster's handle, whether they were a subscriber or not, and a rating, as well as professed gender, nationality etc. the rating was part subjective assessment (by me) and part calculated by the presence or otherwise of spelling and grammatical errors and so on. statistically, the quality of non-subscribers' posts derived from this method is far lower than the quality of subscribers' posts. hence i conclude that the quality of the general forum would improve were these posts excluded. of course, there are some nonsubs who post good stuff, and some (many) subs who post rubbish, but i'm talking averages here. alas, i can't reveal the exact statistics, as they are commercial-in-confidence.
EDIT: of course, it is possible that there is an interference effect - the presence of crap posts by non-subs may inspire subs to greater heights, but i have run an analysis to detect this and it doesn't appear to be a factor.

Originally posted by Exy
People tend to be less disrespectful towards something that they have paid for.

right on! another rec!

Originally posted by jimslyp69
It would be so much fun to have a forum with no one to speak to. May as well have a picnic with no sausage rolls eh dude? 😛

er...there would still be all the subs to talk to...

Originally posted by dfm65
i suspect that the overall quality of the forums (presently dismally low) would improve at least a little if this step were taken. rec.

I think it certainly would reduce the amount of general spamming, trolling and flaming by those who are simply on a passing visit or who have created a spurious second account.

Naturally, you'd get some people who'll take the attitude that I've paid so I can do what I like, but any really objectional and offensive posts could be moderated and at least the site would benefit from the subscription fee.

Originally posted by dfm65
i've been keeping detailed records of all the posts here in the general forum over the past three years, as part of a sociological study i have been conducting on behalf of a client i cannot name. i kept records of the poster's handle, whet ...[text shortened]... an analysis to detect this and it doesn't appear to be a factor.

Well i cannot argue with you on that point then. You seem to have done your homework on that subject. Perhaps the average standard of non subs is of a lesser standard than that of the subs, but does this mean that we can generalise though, and say that the standard of ALL non subs posts is rubbish? No, i don't believe it does.
Also, what criteria did you base these findings on? What may be classed as shyasma to you, maybe the dogs dangly bits to other people.
And last, but far from least, may i point out that this survey was carried out by YOU. Someone who obviously has very strong opinions on the subject. This can only cause the entire survey to be biased and, quite frankly, a complete waste of three years of your time. 🙄

Originally posted by Exy
I think it certainly would reduce the amount of general spamming, trolling and flaming by those who are simply on a passing visit or who have created a spurious second account.

Naturally, you'd get some people who'll take the attitude that I've paid so I can do what I like, but any really objectional and offensive posts could be moderated and at least the site would benefit from the subscription fee.

Yeah but again because we don't like how someone behaves that means they should be banned? He has a right to act like an a$$ provided he doesn't violate the TOS.

I believe this misguided thread is only doing one thing: feeding his enormous ego. Besides I would think it would be easy for him to create another non-sub account and do this all over again if he was banned. Free society, freedom of speech for better or for worse and whether we like what a person says or not is moot.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
I believe this misguided thread is only doing one thing: feeding his enormous ego.

I certainly agree with this point.

Originally posted by Joe Fist
Besides I would think it would be easy for him to create another non-sub account and do this all over again if he was banned. Free society, freedom of speech for better or for worse and whether we like what a person says or not is moot.

I did say before that I don't feel that Bowmann deserves a ban. I just expressed my view that if people could only post freely in all forums if they'd paid something up front then you might get less deliberate disruption of the forums and your quote above shows that you at least understand the logic behind it.

Originally posted by Exy
I did say before that I don't feel that Bowmann deserves a ban. I just expressed my view that if people could only post freely in all forums if they'd paid something up front then you might get less deliberate disruption of the forums.

Oh. Well then I apologize for jumping to the wrong conclusion and, in that sense, I do agree with you. I also think it would be a worthwhile experiment to have the forums "subscribers only" to see if the caliber changes. Personally I think it would.

Originally posted by jimslyp69
And last, but far from least, may i point out that this survey was carried out by YOU. Someone who obviously has very strong opinions on the subject. This can only cause the entire survey to be biased and, quite frankly, a complete waste of three years of your time. 🙄

Well, maybe it was a waste of time, but somehow the substantial amount of moola i got paid to do it reassures me otherwise. the actual study was a lot more sophisticated than i made out, partly because most people wouldn't understand it anyway unless they had studied statistics and demographics to a very advanced standard, and partly because the process incorporates a number of technical advances which i intend to protect legally before revealing - that commercial-in-confidence protects me as well as my client, whom i may reveal is a major player on the world chess scene.