More Perks For Supporters Please

[Valentine Z]

NS is a free game, but you lament about free-riders (free-loaders, you mean)?

... Que ?

This all goes back to square one, the very first principle of NS:

NS is a free game, but feel free to support if you want. Supporters get a few neat features, but nothing that will give them advantage over other free users.

No, "free-rider" means people who decided not to support the site, which is often times due to financial reasons. Which is why, I said multiple times that it is quite unscrupulous to make fundamental features of NS, such as the suggestions, a paid feature.

Ah, I see. My bad for that. Still, yes, my point still stands that you cannot put essential features behind a paywall.

So to recap:

- A supporter-only forum would seperate people, like some "Rich Kids Only" club, so there's that.

- Too many Mini-Mods will spoil the broth (?). If you have a thousand "Mini-Mods because I bought the feature", there will be chaos like this:

Mini Mod A: * Warned for flaming *
Usual Mod: Wait, wtf? That's not the correct ruling. Sorry, folks, warning reversed!

Repeat x 1000. As the current Mods have said it, they are adequately staffed, and they are fine with whatever they are doing now. Plus we got new ones nominated now and then. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

- Ads still run on the site, so that still provides the revenue it needs for site maintenance.

- Max Barry sells books too, so there's money from there.

(https://nsindex.net/wiki/NationStates#Funding)

[Xerographica]

The practical point is to create a specific space for supporters to socialize. It's not like it's an exclusive country club that costs $200,000/year to be a member of. It would only cost a one time payment of $3 dollars to gain access to the supporter forum.

But why exactly do supporters need an exclusive place to chat?! As aforementioned, you can easily meet up with your friends on Discord, you even get notifications when someone posts someone new. Also, you still haven't answered my question, your recommendation of prioritize the suggestions from paid users will fundamentally change the way this site works, as well as NS' game mechanic. Does that mean you would recommend an NS site where more game play mechanics and forum features should be paid rather than free?

Why socialize there when we can socialize here? Regarding using donations to prioritize suggestions... you obviously agree with me that suggestions aren't equally valuable. Then it's just a matter of determining the value of a suggestion. Obviously, from my perspective, I think that donations are the best way to determine the value of a suggestion. But I see no reason to believe that this will inherently get rid of all the free features. I genuinely believe that donation-ranking suggestions will help provide the funding for all sorts of new, fabulous, and free features. Nobody who is going to donate to NS wants it to lose. All donors want NS to win.

[Eclius]

But why exactly do supporters need an exclusive place to chat?! As aforementioned, you can easily meet up with your friends on Discord, you even get notifications when someone posts someone new. Also, you still haven't answered my question, your recommendation of prioritize the suggestions from paid users will fundamentally change the way this site works, as well as NS' game mechanic. Does that mean you would recommend an NS site where more game play mechanics and forum features should be paid rather than free?

Why socialize there when we can socialize here? Regarding using donations to prioritize suggestions... you obviously agree with me that suggestions aren't equally valuable. Then it's just a matter of determining the value of a suggestion. Obviously, from my perspective, I think that donations are the best way to determine the value of a suggestion. But I see no reason to believe that this will inherently get rid of all the free features. I genuinely believe that donation-ranking suggestions will help provide the funding for all sorts of new, fabulous, and free features. Nobody who is going to donate to NS wants it to lose. All donors want NS to win.

No, you're making stuff up that I didn't quite say, frankly, I find that unethical, unscrupulous and quite despicable. I did not say, that suggestions from paid users are worth more than people who couldn't afford to support the site due to financial hardships. As aforementioned, your persistent attempt to diminish the voices from unpaid users is quite unkind. Also, your vision of an NS with cool features, but exclusive for paid people violates the fundamental reason why this site exists. Which, is to create a place to make friends, not to turn it into a corporate machine. Also, as many pointed out, please do realize that the word "free-rider" is quite unkind, such that it hints explicit discrimination toward a group of people when they've done nothing wrong

[Eclius]

No, "free-rider" means people who decided not to support the site, which is often times due to financial reasons. Which is why, I said multiple times that it is quite unscrupulous to make fundamental features of NS, such as the suggestions, a paid feature.

Ah, I see. My bad for that. Still, yes, my point still stands that you cannot put essential features behind a paywall.

So to recap:

- A supporter-only forum would seperate people, like some "Rich Kids Only" club, so there's that.

- Too many Mini-Mods will spoil the broth (?). If you have a thousand "Mini-Mods because I bought the feature", there will be chaos like this:

Mini Mod A: * Warned for flaming *
Usual Mod: Wait, wtf? That's not the correct ruling. Sorry, folks, warning reversed!

Repeat x 1000. As the current Mods have said it, they are adequately staffed, and they are fine with whatever they are doing now. Plus we got new ones nominated now and then. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

- Ads still run on the site, so that still provides the revenue it needs for site maintenance.

- Max Barry sells books too, so there's money from there.

(https://nsindex.net/wiki/NationStates#Funding)

Indeed, it violates the very reason why NS exists. Unfortunately, this idea is not shared amongst everyone, with some believing that NS should have new and cooler features for those who are willing to pay.

[Gandoor]

Reading through the thread and like, all of OPs suggestions are utterly terrible.

A supporter-only forum?

Allow reporting only for supporters?

What?

Are you just throwing random ideas in the hopes that maybe one will stick and become a feature?

[Eclius]

Reading through the thread and like, all of OPs suggestions are utterly terrible.

A supporter-only forum?

Allow reporting only for supporters?

What?

Are you just throwing random ideas in the hopes that maybe one will stick and become a feature?

Xerographica also made it quite explicit that voices from paid users worth more than unpaid users, such that only suggestions from paid users should be heard. Also, his attempt to make reporting requests exclusive to supporters is not helping either, it truly is quite shocking how one can come up with such greed-driven ideas. Nevertheless, I've made my point clear, NS must not make fundamental features, such as suggestion and reporting, a paid feature

[Xerographica]

Why socialize there when we can socialize here? Regarding using donations to prioritize suggestions... you obviously agree with me that suggestions aren't equally valuable. Then it's just a matter of determining the value of a suggestion. Obviously, from my perspective, I think that donations are the best way to determine the value of a suggestion. But I see no reason to believe that this will inherently get rid of all the free features. I genuinely believe that donation-ranking suggestions will help provide the funding for all sorts of new, fabulous, and free features. Nobody who is going to donate to NS wants it to lose. All donors want NS to win.

No, you're making stuff up that I didn't quite say, frankly, I find that unethical, unscrupulous and quite despicable. I did not say, that suggestions from paid users are worth more than people who couldn't afford to support the site due to financial hardships. As aforementioned, your persistent attempt to diminish the voices from unpaid users is quite unkind. Also, your vision of an NS with cool features, but exclusive for paid people violates the fundamental reason why this site exists. Which, is to create a place to make friends, not to turn it into a corporate machine.

You misunderstand me. I didn't say that you said that paid users make more valuable suggestions than poor users. I simply said that you agree with me that suggestions aren't equally valuable. I'm not sure how you misunderstood this. Do you think that you equally value all suggestions?

My vision isn't for NS to only be awesome for paid users. My vision is for NS to be awesome for everybody... both rich and poor. This vision depends on funding.

[G-Tech Corporation]

Gotta say, these are great ideas.

Though, of course, they should be tested rigorously first, with a small population.

We must, before we experiment with perks for Supporters, test perks for Staff.

I personally look forward to my free copy of Jennifer Government and one free 36-hour forumban to hand out every week as suitable recompense for the time-money investment I have made in this site over the years.

[Eclius]

No, you're making stuff up that I didn't quite say, frankly, I find that unethical, unscrupulous and quite despicable. I did not say, that suggestions from paid users are worth more than people who couldn't afford to support the site due to financial hardships. As aforementioned, your persistent attempt to diminish the voices from unpaid users is quite unkind. Also, your vision of an NS with cool features, but exclusive for paid people violates the fundamental reason why this site exists. Which, is to create a place to make friends, not to turn it into a corporate machine.

You misunderstand me. I didn't say that you said that paid users make more valuable suggestions than poor users. I simply said that you agree with me that suggestions aren't equally valuable. I'm not sure how you misunderstood this. Do you think that you equally value all suggestions?

My vision isn't for NS to only be awesome for paid users. My vision is for NS to be awesome for everybody... both rich and poor. This vision depends on funding.

Now, why is it that you think suggestions from paid users are somehow more valuable than suggestions from unpaid users? Also, I did not misunderstood you, I simply suggested it was a fallacy to say that paid users give more valuable suggestions. Also, the fact you recommended more paid features which would be fundamental to gameplay/forum experience such as paid forum doesn't align with your words of "My vision is for NS to be awesome for everybody, rich and poor". I shall say this again, more paid features will not help this site, it will only worsen its reputation.

[Lamoni]

And if that happens, then the staff will get their own tropical island from which to hand out rulings, as well as live. Obviously the Mods/Admins would get the better half of the island, since our time/money investment into the game is greater than that of anyone else, right?

[G-Tech Corporation]

And if that happens, then the staff will get their own tropical island from which to hand out rulings, as well as live. Obviously the Mods/Admins would get the better half of the island, since our time/money investment into the game is greater than that of anyone else, right?

I must disagree.

Based on my entirely empirical and completely concrete assessment of the value of my writing on this site, and my wholly unbiased assessment of your, mm, shall we say, tepid contributions... I shall be taking my better half of the tropical island, thankyouverymuch. From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs. Ergo sum hoc, fernus proctor-gamble.

[Mallorea and Riva]

Xero I think part of the problem comes from your belief that the best way to determine if a suggestion is valuable is by having people use money to back it up. The issue is that all you demonstrate through that is the relative value of the suggestion to that person. If you put up 40 bucks to support an idea and I put up 50 bucks to oppose it, that does not mean that I'm right and you're wrong. It doesn't even mean that I care more than you, if I'm rich and you're poor you probably care far more by putting up the 40 bucks than I do about dropping 50 on it.

Additionally simply because someone really cares about an idea doesn't mean that it's a good idea that deserves inclusion in the site. There are plenty of posters who honestly believe their suggestion is a great idea that will truly make this site a better place but that are simply wrong. We have had our fair sure of obsessive posters who simply can't let certain ideas go, despite the fact that they are not good ideas. We don't want those people throwing their money at us with an expectation that we will implement their ideas. As we've said, it's bad enough when site supporters expect leniency from Moderation.

[Xerographica]

You misunderstand me. I didn't say that you said that paid users make more valuable suggestions than poor users. I simply said that you agree with me that suggestions aren't equally valuable. I'm not sure how you misunderstood this. Do you think that you equally value all suggestions?

My vision isn't for NS to only be awesome for paid users. My vision is for NS to be awesome for everybody... both rich and poor. This vision depends on funding.

Now, why is it that you think suggestions from paid users are somehow more valuable than suggestions from unpaid users?

I don't think this. I think that suggestions should be ranked by donations.

Also, I did not misunderstood you, I simply suggested it was a fallacy to say that paid users give more valuable suggestions.

But I never suggested that paid users make more valuable suggestions than unpaid users.

Also, the fact you recommended more paid features which would be fundamental to gameplay/forum experience such as paid forum doesn't align with your words of "My vision is for NS to be awesome for everybody, rich and poor". I shall say this again, more paid features will not help this site, it will only worsen its reputation.

I never suggested any features having anything to do with the game. In any case, awesome features for everyone aren't cheap. They cost a lot of money. Therefore, money has to be raised to help pay for these awesome features. One way to help raise money is to give more perks to supporters.

[Eclius]

Additionally simply because someone really cares about an idea doesn't mean that it's a good idea that deserves inclusion in the site. There are plenty of posters who honestly believe their suggestion is a great idea that will truly make this site a better place but that are simply wrong. We have had our fair sure of obsessive posters who simply can't let certain ideas go, despite the fact that they are not good ideas. We don't want those people throwing their money at us with an expectation that we will implement their ideas. As we've said, it's bad enough when site supporters expect leniency from Moderation.

That's exactly what I've been trying to say, just because someone paid for something, it doesn't frankly mean their suggestion is a good one, or somehow actually more valuable than an unpaid user (to be, a valuable suggestion would be one that can fundamentally improve the experience with the site). Also, some people may pay the money to access other features as Xerographica suggested, simply paying the support fee does not equate how much they care about their suggestion

[Eclius]

Now, why is it that you think suggestions from paid users are somehow more valuable than suggestions from unpaid users?

I don't think this. I think that suggestions should be ranked by donations.

Also, I did not misunderstood you, I simply suggested it was a fallacy to say that paid users give more valuable suggestions.

But I never suggested that paid users make more valuable suggestions than unpaid users.

Also, the fact you recommended more paid features which would be fundamental to gameplay/forum experience such as paid forum doesn't align with your words of "My vision is for NS to be awesome for everybody, rich and poor". I shall say this again, more paid features will not help this site, it will only worsen its reputation.

I never suggested any features having anything to do with the game. In any case, awesome features for everyone aren't cheap. They cost a lot of money. Therefore, money has to be raised to help pay for these awesome features. One way to help raise money is to give more perks to supporters.

Once again, your argument that suggestion from paid users should be ranked and given a priority is implicitly hinting the fact that you believe suggestion from paid users like yourself (given that you possess the post-master gen title). Like Riva said, it's a false perception that suggestions from paid users are fundamentally superior and more valuable to the effort of improve the experience with the site. And as I said, the issue with your suggestion of "more perks" is that many of these perceived "perks" are in reality intertwined with the game play experience such as suggestions and reporting. They are not like those "cool skins", they are more like paid Darth Vader from Battlefront 2. The idea is very different here.

[Eclius]

Personally, I think if we want to raise more money, we should advocate for it in an ethical way (majority of the NS players are nice and decent people, we will heed the call). Rather than making an exclusive forum and get money through means similar to Battlefront 2.

[Gandoor]

Now, why is it that you think suggestions from paid users are somehow more valuable than suggestions from unpaid users?

I don't think this. I think that suggestions should be ranked by donations.

But why? Why should this be a thing?

I can't think of any other reason other than 'people who pay should have priority over free users'.

[Xerographica]

Xero I think part of the problem comes from your belief that the best way to determine if a suggestion is valuable is by having people use money to back it up. The issue is that all you demonstrate through that is the relative value of the suggestion to that person. If you put up 40 bucks to support an idea and I put up 50 bucks to oppose it, that does not mean that I'm right and you're wrong. It doesn't even mean that I care more than you, if I'm rich and you're poor you probably care far more by putting up the 40 bucks than I do about dropping 50 on it.

Additionally simply because someone really cares about an idea doesn't mean that it's a good idea that deserves inclusion in the site. There are plenty of posters who honestly believe their suggestion is a great idea that will truly make this site a better place but that are simply wrong. We have had our fair sure of obsessive posters who simply can't let certain ideas go, despite the fact that they are not good ideas. We don't want those people throwing their money at us with an expectation that we will implement their ideas. As we've said, it's bad enough when site supporters expect leniency from Moderation.

The part that I always fail to adequately articulate is the dialogue dimension, which is ironic because it's also present in this very discussion. You have insider knowledge about which ideas do, and do not, deserve inclusion in this site. I have outsider knowledge about which ideas do, and do not, deserve inclusion in this site. If donations were used to rank suggestions, then we'd symmetrize our knowledge. I'd gain your insider knowledge and you'd gain my outsider knowledge. We can see this happening to some extent in this thread. But with donation-ranking of suggestions this process would be far more efficient. It would be a rapid back and forth cycle of correcting/improving each other's priorities.

Does this make sense? Ranking suggestions with donations is like taking an exam. Everybody can "grade" this exam and adjust their "lessons" accordingly. We all benefit from correcting/improving each other's priorities.

[Trotterdam]

We all benefit from correcting/improving each other's priorities.

I think the fact that just about everyone else in this thread is disagreeing with you should clue you in as to where our priorities lie, even if we're not spending money on them.

[Eclius]

Xero I think part of the problem comes from your belief that the best way to determine if a suggestion is valuable is by having people use money to back it up. The issue is that all you demonstrate through that is the relative value of the suggestion to that person. If you put up 40 bucks to support an idea and I put up 50 bucks to oppose it, that does not mean that I'm right and you're wrong. It doesn't even mean that I care more than you, if I'm rich and you're poor you probably care far more by putting up the 40 bucks than I do about dropping 50 on it.

Additionally simply because someone really cares about an idea doesn't mean that it's a good idea that deserves inclusion in the site. There are plenty of posters who honestly believe their suggestion is a great idea that will truly make this site a better place but that are simply wrong. We have had our fair sure of obsessive posters who simply can't let certain ideas go, despite the fact that they are not good ideas. We don't want those people throwing their money at us with an expectation that we will implement their ideas. As we've said, it's bad enough when site supporters expect leniency from Moderation.

The part that I always fail to adequately articulate is the dialogue dimension, which is ironic because it's also present in this very discussion. You have insider knowledge about which ideas do, and do not, deserve inclusion in this site. I have outsider knowledge about which ideas do, and do not, deserve inclusion in this site. If donations were used to rank suggestions, then we'd symmetrize our knowledge. I'd gain your insider knowledge and you'd gain my outsider knowledge. We can see this happening to some extent in this thread. But with donation-ranking of suggestions this process would be far more efficient. It would be a rapid back and forth cycle of correcting/improving each other's priorities.

Does this make sense? Ranking suggestions with donations is like taking an exam. Everybody can "grade" this exam and adjust their "lessons" accordingly. We all benefit from correcting/improving each other's priorities.

You're saying we should pay to become mods (maybe that's what you meant by ''symmetrize our knowledge). This is getting more ridiculous, you're now suggesting that there should be an option for people to pay to become moderators (when the title "moderator" is honorific and should be earned), so the individual can "gain the insider knowledge" like you said through paid means. What you said was basically a long and more implicit version of "I think I should be a moderator since I paid, and I should have the insiders knowledge". I personally believe this is preposterous, and that the current system works just fine. Moderators should be elected and nominated like what we're currently doing, rather than given away to presumably the highest bidder so they can have access to "insider information". Also, I cannot seem to understand your exam analogy, it doesn't seem to make any coherent sense to me.

[Eclius]

We all benefit from correcting/improving each other's priorities.

I think the fact that just about everyone else in this thread is disagreeing with you should clue you in as to where our priorities lie, even if we're not spending money on them.

Indeed, I think people's stance on this issue is quite clear and visible, regardless of what argument Xerographica has.

[Xerographica]

We all benefit from correcting/improving each other's priorities.

I think the fact that just about everyone else in this thread is disagreeing with you should clue you in as to where our priorities lie, even if we're not spending money on them.

And if the majority was always right then there wouldn't be a problem. But sometimes the majority is wrong. Let's say that we use donations to rank suggestions. If the majority cares strongly about a suggestion, then the minority will lose. But if the majority only cares weakly about a suggestion, then there's a chance that the minority might win. Of course in any case it will be entirely up to the leadership to decide which suggestions to implement. So by "winning" I mean highly ranking a suggestion.

[Chan Island]

At this point Max Barry must love you Xerographica for your efforts.

[Eclius]

I think the fact that just about everyone else in this thread is disagreeing with you should clue you in as to where our priorities lie, even if we're not spending money on them.

And if the majority was always right then there wouldn't be a problem. But sometimes the majority is wrong. Let's say that we use donations to rank suggestions. If the majority cares strongly about a suggestion, then the minority will lose. But if the majority only cares weakly about a suggestion, then there's a chance that the minority might win. Of course in any case it will be entirely up to the leadership to decide which suggestions to implement. So by "winning" I mean highly ranking a suggestion.

Ok, so now you're against democratic votes on suggestions simply because they were against your recommendation. Please be aware, your explicit attempt to silence and diminish the voices from the majority who disagrees with your recommendation is absolutely senseless. Please do learn to take advice and recommendation from the majority. I think right at this point, it is clear and visible that your recommendations do not work, given that it has such a low approval rating.

Also, given that we all use this site quite often, and that any change in decisions will influence us, thus, everyone here cares very strongly about this issue (and you were trying to somewhat discredit the majority by saying they don't care as much) and given that we all disagree with you, it's a hint that, your recommendations will not work.

[Kyrusia]

And this thread has run its course. Moderation has made clear that these suggestions simply do not work. They have a considerably high likelihood of needlessly upsetting, if not outright breaking, the game's balance in favor of those who decided to pay - something we have no intention or desire to do. The technical viability is, at best, questionable, and otherwise simply not possible or valuable, restrictive of Moderator time, and otherwise would be putting a burden on Admin to add something with no discernable benefit. Which, at last, as has been brought up repeatedly: we have no intention of making, or gesturing toward making, NationStates a site which unduly grants benefits to paid players simply because they've paid.

We're done here. iLock.