Third. Most non-subs are very pleasant, and we should not discriminate the rule abiding majority jjust because of the rule breaking majority. After all, non-subs are potential subs.
Subs or non-subs we are all here to play chess and to post in the forums. It is not as it is such a big issue. Besides some non-subs are better players than subs.
Originally posted by Dr Strangelove I put up an open invite for 'NON-SUB SCUM ONLY' it finally got accepted and then swiftly deleted for some unknown reason. :'(
Maybe if you could name it 'subs only' or something brilliant they [we] would take the hint..
It's not because an option exists that anyone has to use it. So from that perspective it doesn't hurt anyone if it''s there, and it makes some of us happy.
In the same vein, sometimes I'd like to be able to exclude provisionally rated players.
Originally posted by CeSinge It's not because an option exists that anyone has to use it. So from that perspective it doesn't hurt anyone if it''s there, and it makes some of us happy.
In the same vein, sometimes I'd like to be able to exclude provisionally rated players.
It's just a matter of options and choices.
Rating limits exclude provisionals if I remember rightly.
It does seem like non-subs abandon more games. But in the grand scheme of things I'm not sure it's a big deal.
I support the proposal to allow subcribers to stipulate 'Subscibers Only' when poating a new game. We are not asking you to 'discriminate against non-subscribers'; merely to allow those of us
who put our money where our mouths are to excercise the option if we individually wish. This has nothing to do with the 'pleasantness' or otherwise of the nons as you suggest in your unsatisfactory reply to 'point' who first proposed the idea. Why not have a ballot to find what the subscribers think about it?