First thing that I would to address is the new "6 game maximum for freebie members. It takes 20 games to have any kind of rating, and because of this, I feel the 6 game maz is not enough."Red hot pawn"
advertised free online chess, and as a result, they should service those who want this free chess. I once was a premium member, however, at this time I cannot afford to be. I likely will be be a premium player in the future. Now that I cannot afford to be a premium member, I still feel that I should be given some benefits for being a free member. (Again, Red Hot Pawn advertises that it is free.)
If anyone agrees that red hot pawn should not drop our "10 game maximum" rule to six games, please write your concerns to red hot pawn. I say that those who cannot afford to pay should be able to play.
Red hot pawn please give us our "10 game maximum" rule back!!!!
Originally posted by IDAVID First thing that I would to address is the new "6 game maximum for freebie members. It takes 20 games to have any kind of rating, and because of this, I feel the 6 game maz is not enough."Red hot pawn"
advertised free online chess, and as a result, they should service those who want this free chess. I once was a premium member, however, at this time I c ...[text shortened]... o pay should be able to play.
Red hot pawn please give us our "10 game maximum" rule back!!!!
Well,the six games you play as a non-subscriber are free,so the Rhp advertisement is correct.
If ten games are given to non-subs this would increase the number of people who join the site but doesn't subscribe.
Business is business and money for living is not a joke,put in admins' shoes.
Originally posted by IDAVID If anyone agrees that red hot pawn should not drop our "10 game maximum" rule to six games, please write your concerns to red hot pawn. I say that those who cannot afford to pay should be able to play.
I love the righteous indignation and sense of entitlement.
Make your own site if you want to play for free. You have
free games that Russ pays for out of his own pocket. That's
right, you've got something for nothing, and now you want
more?
Ever tried getting free stuff? Always strings with attached.
Not here. You get exactly what you say you are going to get:
FREE games, FREE forums, and FREE private messages,
all out of Russ' pocket.
Instead of looking at the things you don't have, why don't
you focus on the things that you do have (and don't pay for).
Originally posted by IDAVID I say that those who cannot afford to pay should be able to play.
Red hot pawn please give us our "10 game maximum" rule back!!!!
In a perfect world 'free' would actually mean free 🙂
I suggest you ask Russ if he can work out a cheaper option for you to play. Perhaps a monthly subscription based on a yearly rate.
True yes, 6 games are not enough, but 10 games may prevent some from joining.
Originally posted by pcaspian Originally posted by IDAVID
True yes, 6 games are not enough, but 10 games may prevent some from joining.
cheers
Wrong.
With ten games more people is attracted and will join but this can prevent them from subscribing.
Joining and subscribing are two different things.
Originally posted by Ravello Wrong.
With ten games more people is attracted and will join but this can [b]prevent them from subscribing.
Joining and subscribing are two different things.[/b]
i think lots of games(ten or more) for unpaying users has two problems ....
1/ russ gets no money and so site maintanence is not supported
2/ unpaying users often cannot be trusted to finish a game, their opponents invest thinking time only to have the game abandoned. 10 abandoned games is worse than 6.
must serious players will be happy to subscribe at some point.
It wouldn't surprise me if it was bandwidth either. I'm a professional developer and used to run a popular website - the entire commercial aspect came down to making enough money to cover the hosting fees.
Give us our "10 game max" rule back!!!!
26 Dec '04 22:10
Back to Top