17 Jul 05
Originally posted by darvlayBlooming heck Darve, why didn't you just find a thread ID from the other 1000 threads on this subject, copy and paste it. This is on par with burnt toast. 😛
For all the subscribers:
Yes or no, should non-subscribers be banned from the forums and state your reasons. I reserve the right to unmercilessly mock you if I think your position is ridonkulous.
But seriously, no I don't think they should be banned. I have a feeling that it would become eerily quiet round here if that was to be the case. I think they add flavour and interest to the forums. Remember boxcarracer220? He was a laugh a fookin minute.
Besides, with a maximum of 6 games waiting, they are bound to get a bit bored and need something else to keep themselves occupied. If it wasn't for the forums, I fear many would just sod off elsewhere. Whereas if they can participate in the forums, they may well get to know the community here and get to like us 😕 and who knows even subscribe. 🙄
17 Jul 05
2 edits
Originally posted by darvlayThere are two positive reasons for banning non-subscribers from the forums to my mind.
For all the subscribers:
Yes or no, should non-subscribers be banned from the forums and state your reasons. I reserve the right to unmercilessly mock you if I think your position is ridonkulous.
1) It would stop spamming by random individuals who have no interest in playing chess at this site or contributing anything positive to it. (this stands for those subscribers who are crafty enough to create a second account for that purpose).
2) The forums are obviously one of the selling points of this site so reserving posting rights for subscirbers only would encourage more people to sign up, not only for the chess, but to take part in the lively debates, fun and mayhem that goes on here.
17 Jul 05
Originally posted by ExyMaybe a limited amount of forum posts would help. We have a limit on games. This would cut down on frivolous posts.
There are two positive reasons for banning non-subscribers from the forums to my mind.
1) It would stop spamming by random individuals who have no interest in playing chess at this site or contributing anything positive to it. (this stands for those subscribers who are crafty enough to create a second account of that purpose).
2) The forums are obviously o ...[text shortened]... t only for the chess, to be take part in the lively debates, fun and mayhem that goes on here.
I also like sharkmeat.
17 Jul 05
Originally posted by darvlayThey should be allowed to stay and post for a limited time , like 3 months . Then they should subscribe or vammoos without letting the door hit em' where the good lord split em' .
For all the subscribers:
Yes or no, should non-subscribers be banned from the forums and state your reasons. I reserve the right to unmercilessly mock you if I think your position is ridonkulous.
17 Jul 05
Originally posted by darvlayYou are absolutely right. I have noticed this many times - if a non-subscriber does something people don't like, it's always pointed out that he/she is a non-subscriber, and it's used against non-subscribers in general. If a subscriber does the same, only the person who does it is blamed. That's how discrimination works.
The reason I said it was to indirectly point out the ridonkulousness of that specific argument which certain proponents of banning non-subscribers tend to lean on.
17 Jul 05
Originally posted by darvlayMaybe we could ban the non-subs on even calendar days....post all you want today, Darv, but tomorrow stay quiet! 😉
Please, either answer the question or stay out of the thread (ANGIE). Too many subscribers do nothing but clutter up threads with tangents and non-related posts.