I’ve heard a rumor from another member that the straight dope has toyed around with the idea to charge members a membership fee. I personally would pay a membership fee.
Also I appologise if I am posting something that has been ran into the ground. I’m just curiouse.
I hate to actually admit it, but I’d pay. I would rather not, but would if I had to. If there was a fee, though, I’d expect them to add extra servers or upgrade the speed of their net connection- whatever it would take to get the hamsters to do their job right.
Since this is a question About This Message Board, I’ll move this to About This Message Board forum.
Off to ATMB.
DrMatrix - General Questions Moderator
It has been run into the ground to a certain extent, but you’re new here (welcome), so that’s cool.
ARGUMENTS FOR A PAID BOARD:
-The Chicago Reader is a commercial entity, not a charity. We don’t have a right to expect this free service.
-A paid board would enable the Reader to give the hamsters some amphetamines, or whatever it takes.
-It would discourage trolls, wankers, and summer vacation kiddies from bothering us.
ARGUMENTS AGAINST A PAID BOARD:
-Some people just can’t afford it, give it a low priority in their household budgeting, or refuse to pay on principle.
-See above. Whilst some of us would be willing to pay for the enjoyment we currently get from the boards, if many posters (including many much loved, high profile ones) are no longer here, then it won’t be the same SDMB. It may be a big problem, or it may not. We will be paying for something unknown.
-The SDMB provides publicity for the Reader. It is cited, and linked to. Some argue that this alone is worth keeping it as is.
Also: in a pay system, the number of new members and people “just experimenting” with the board would drop dramatically. We’d get much less new blood, which could be a problem in the long run.
Even though that’s an argument against, I’m actually in favor of a paid structure - but something reasonable, with the intent to break even, rather than an attempt to make big bucks off of it.
What about a pay system that only charges for posting, not browsing (or lurking)?
[ul]
[li]Provide a waiver where the first 100 posts are free.[/li][li]Charge a penny or two per post for post 101 through something like post 5,000.[/li][li] Hi Opal![/li][li]Folks with over 5,000 posts are considered SDMB emeritus and get a free ride.[/li][/ul]
I haven’t done the math to figure out whether that would generate sufficient funding to purchase the necessary amphetamines, but it seems to be a structure that would address the drawbacks already mentioned.
I personally hate the concept of paying for the SDMB. But, the reality is that the hamsters are stretched too thin, and I think I could bear the concept for better performance.
AZ, i don’t see people wanting to pay to answer your questions… what i mean is… i spend a lot of my time in GQ… where most people make a huge effort to answer your questions with well researched replies. i don’t see them additionally wanting to pay to answer your questions. this would defeat the whole purpose of the GQ forum.
that aside, this topic has been discussed in detail on the ATMB… i don’t know what search terms would bring up the old threads, but maybe you could try a search for “charge” “fees” “payment” “membership” etc. 3 letter words don’t work in the search, so searching for “pay” won’t help.
perhaps someone could come along and link to one of the longer discussions on this topic.
ok, i’ll come along and post a link…
here’s the mother of all discussions on this topic…
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=98127
it’s 5 pages long.
That thread was from last November, and while it’s worthwhile reading, here’s amore current discussion of those issues to post to if you’re interested.
OK. I’ve read the short thread and part of the longer one. The pay-to-post idea seems to be universally acknowledged as a board killer.
I see people have suggested fund drives à la NPR, which was also my suggestion. This idea was rejected by several posters on the grounds that, being a commercial entity, the Chicago Reader cannot accept donations. But this seems like a semantic problem to me. What if we just didn’t call them “donations”?
If the Reader were to set up a sliding scale for annual membership, based on the honor system, I’m guessing they’d raise enough to break even, if not turn a small profit. (I recently read a thread from 2000 or 2001 in which roughly $5000 in pledges was raised in relatively short order, which was within striking distance of the cost of a new server at the time.) This would allow people to donate as much as they could afford, even if that’s nothing, and so would not drive down traffic, but would still hopefully generate enough revenue to keep the board from becoming a financial drain on the Reader.
What’s wrong with this?
Heck, we’ve even had people offer to physically drop off an anonymous donation of the equipment needed if the CR will give us the specifications.
The bottom line is that the CR doesn’t want to do anything which compromises its options.
If the CR accepts a donation of money or equipment for the dedicated purpose of providing the SDMB with a new server, there are going to be a lot of pissed off people if the CR decides a month later that SDMB maintenance is consuming too much of **Jerrythetechgod/b]'s valuable time and that it is no longer viable for the CR to support the messageboard.
We have recently been advised that there is a plan in the works which may allow members to contribute to the financial welfare of the board (I’m sure someone else can find the thread faster than I can), so I guess we’re all just going to have to wait until the powers that be decide to share the details of the plan with us.
I really will learn to close vBulletin tags one day.
Not necessarily, tractorbeemer.
Assume a scenario in which said 5000 post poster answered 5000 of your/others’ questions in GQ (or wherever). The benefit, as i see it, is to the person who asked the question, NOT to the person who answered it.
Actually, *tractorbeemer is right -maybe not exactly correct in his numbers, but he’s right that creating a special priveleged class of posters, based on post count, would just cause the same idiotic mumbling we already have about “the Clique”[supTM[/sup] to be magnified a thousandfold. Worse yet, the idiotic mumblers would actually be right for the first time, since there really would be a class of posters with more clout than your average newbie. Not good, as they say.