09 Apr 06
Originally posted by XanthosNZI agree with you completely about ''30 second period'', that way you will not post non-sense.
Why? He is the kind of poster that I would be interested in getting rid of. I enjoy the contributions of some non-subs. I think that without them these forums would die a slow death. In fact before I was a sub I posted in the forums. Except I posted meaningfully and with actual thought.
I will reiterate, I don't want to get rid of all non-subs from the ...[text shortened]... forums I frequent have something along the lines of a max of one post per 30 second period.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemThe statement "Your argument actually works against you" applies to you as well.
Your argument actually works against you: This is a chess site, so the extra chess features (tourneys, clans, unlimited games, etc.) ought to be paid for. "Sideshow" things like forum access should not require payment.
"This is a chess site".
And everything you can do on this site is a "feature", and those paying probably care little about what you think "ought to be paid for".
I'd like to see non-subscribers still able to post...but not have the ability to start any threads.
If "No representation without taxation" were the order and non-subscribers could only read the forums but not post - it might generate a few memberships, but the idea has little downside to most subscribers.
09 Apr 06
Originally posted by xsYou strike me as the type who has trouble doing much of anything if there is not some exchange of money involved.
The statement "Your argument actually works against you" applies to you as well.
"This is a chess site".
And everything you can do on this site is a "feature", and those paying probably care little about what you think "ought to be paid for".
I'd like to see non-subscribers still able to post...but not have the ability to start any threads.
If "No repres ...[text shortened]... ght generate a few memberships, but the idea has little downside to most subscribers.
Despite your emphatic statement, I've seen several subscribers agree with me that forum access ought to be free.
The last paragraph reveals your true position. You'd prefer to come out fully against non-subs even having the right to exist on the server, but are hesitant to openly espouse such an extreme position.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemYeah sure..and you rock posterboy.
You strike me as the type who has trouble doing much of anything if there is not some exchange of money involved.
Despite your emphatic statement, I've seen several subscribers agree with me that forum access ought to be free.
The last paragraph reveals your true position. You'd prefer to come out fully against non-subs even having the right to exist on the server, but are hesitant to openly espouse such an extreme position.
10 Apr 06
Originally posted by Dr StrangeloveActually, I think this rule should apply to anyone (non-subscribers and subscribers). Subs are still allowed to rec others and perhaps they can get to post two times the amount of non-subscribers. It's an excellent idea! Fabulous! It's bound to keep spammers out. You actually have to play chess to be allowed in the forums and it would definitely lower the amount of spam.
No problem - just stating a fact.
1 Hundred chess moves - 1 forum post. [per day or week or whatever]
2 Hundred chess moves - 2 forum posts.
And so on and on....
This would prevent new accounts being made for the sole purpose of spamming.
You're a friggin' genius! 🙂