Apolyton Revenue

[Ming]

Just because there is a charge, doesn't mean the rules need to be changed or enforced any differently then they are now. Just like any other "private club" the owners can still dictate the rules, and punish those that violate them. In other words, just because you paid doesn't give you the right to be a complete jerk

If you don't like it... you don't have to either sign up or continue to renew.

[Agathon]

No one said it gave you the right to do anything, Ming.

But if people are going to pay the owners will accrue certain obligations to them that they don't currently have.

[Ming]

Not really... I will grant you that the FAQ would probably have to be updated But I don't see any "obligations" that will be "accrued" by the owners if people have to pay. It's still the choice of the subscribers on whether they are willing to pay or continue to pay. The same rules could be applied. If people didn't like it, they could stop subscribing. Just like any other private pay site. If you are implying they may want to run their site differently to compete in this more capitalistic format, you are probably right. But lets not call it "accrue certain obligations"... call it what it really is... making the proper business decisions

[Imran Siddiqui]

But if people are going to pay the owners will accrue certain obligations to them that they don't currently have.

Indeed... or else you'll see an Exodus to rival Biblical passages .

[Ming]

I guess it's just a matter of "terms". Because again, they will have no additional "obligations". But yes, they may make different decisions based on a desire to maximize the number of paying members

[Venom]

You fools would pay for a forum? When there are so many other perfectly good ones out there? Damn you retards.

[PLATO]

Whoa! I'm talking ONLY about eliminating the ads. Not creating any obligation on the part of the owners other than to eliminate the ad content. A simple disclaimer and non-refundable clause should do the trick. Let's not make this bigger than it is.

Also, concerning straight donations...Dan has said that this would entail setting up as a different kind of legal entity. Something that he has stated that he is unwilling to do. He stated that the criteria for accepting money must be a service or product rendered.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Venom
You fools would pay for a forum? When there are so many other perfectly good ones out there? Damn you retards.

Why are you here?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

But if people are going to pay the owners will accrue certain obligations to them that they don't currently have.

Indeed... or else you'll see an Exodus to rival Biblical passages .

Beyond the service rendered, what obligations are you anticipating? I see no need for the owners to do a thing beyond eliminating ad content under the proposed system.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Ming
Not really... I will grant you that the FAQ would probably have to be updated But I don't see any "obligations" that will be "accrued" by the owners if people have to pay. It's still the choice of the subscribers on whether they are willing to pay or continue to pay. The same rules could be applied. If people didn't like it, they could stop subscribing. Just like any other private pay site. If you are implying they may want to run their site differently to compete in this more capitalistic format, you are probably right. But lets not call it "accrue certain obligations"... call it what it really is... making the proper business decisions

That's the idea. I don't see your problem. You can't take money off people without certain promises in exchange.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO

Beyond the service rendered, what obligations are you anticipating? I see no need for the owners to do a thing beyond eliminating ad content under the proposed system.

If you're going to suspend someone's account and they have paid for it, you have to take reasonable steps to ensure that they knew the reasons. You can't just cut off someone's account for any reason at all. Imagine if all businesses ran that way.

The FAQ is sadly deficient in this area. That's why I suggested that if Poly becomes a pay site, the FAQ should be updated.

[mrmitchell]

You can't take money off people without certain promises in exchange.

Yeah, and the promise is "no ads".

Not that I support such a system anyways. How would your advertisers like it?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Agathon


If you're going to suspend someone's account and they have paid for it, you have to take reasonable steps to ensure that they knew the reasons. You can't just cut off someone's account for any reason at all. Imagine if all businesses ran that way.

The FAQ is sadly deficient in this area. That's why I suggested that if Poly becomes a pay site, the FAQ should be updated.

I understand what you are saying, but this could be solved by supplying a certain number of ad free days for a fee. The clock could stop during a suspension (eithier voluntary or involuntary for that matter)

[PLATO]

Originally posted by mrmitchell


Yeah, and the promise is "no ads".

Not that I support such a system anyways. How would your advertisers like it?

I would imagine about as well as the pop-up blockers.

[Agathon]

There'll need to be more than no ads to get many takers and banning people who use popup blockers isn't likely to work.

You want to catch a fish, you put something nice on your hook.