How about a thread for POSITIVE ideas to help Skinner make an equitable fee structure?

[Atman]

I see a lot of people who are just complaining, or are upset that Skinner's new $42 annual fee will be a burden for many. I agree, it will be. My biggest fear is that the structure will discourage the donation of donor stars to others, at least for periods beyond one month. There are a lot of DUers, and I'm sure there are a lot of different ideas out there. I've posted a few in other threads, such as tiered memberships -- a cheaper membership which includes SOME advertising, but not as bad as a free membership. I've seen this work on other sites. Or a quarterly rate, or a rate that doesn't include access to PMs and custom avatars and minor stuff.

The point is, Skinner, love it or hate it, is trying to run a business. I know that causes many on DU recoil in horror, like garlic to a vampire, but it's reality. This kinda stuff is expensive to run. $1 donations, as I've seen some suggest, don't make economic sense once the $1 PayPal fees and/or VISA/MasterCard merchant fees are factored in. I don't have the answers, but I'd rather see a thread devoted to helping find some answers instead of just another thread where everyone just hates on the proposed new system and calls out other DUers as elitist because they say $42 won't hurt them. That doesn't help anyone.

So...anyone have some brilliant idea to help Skinner monetize the site that won't alienate many of the regular small-donors. Remember, a LOT of people are perfectly happy to deal with DU's ads, judging by the number of posters I see with no stars. Maybe you can start by simply installing a browser with an ad blocker? :shrug:

[snooper2]

1. I already did in another thread

Everybody who wants the "special" "cute" features send in your tax return from last year..

Then he can come up with whatever payment structure based on income...

Oh, and no hiding shit offshores :rofl:

[Cirque du So-What]

7. As predicted

You'll be busy today, so here's another one:

[snooper2]

11. That's not a shit stirrer..

This would be. Don't you clean your toliet bowls?

[Cirque du So-What]

28. You're showing a shit-scrubber

It's for eliminating shit. What I showed is more appropriate, as it's employed in the preparation of messes that get served up for your personal enjoyment at the revulsion of others.

[snooper2]

55. I don't think you would want to use a wooden spoon for that..

probably a metal spork would be more appropriate. Easier to clean...

You don't slice up raw meat on a wooden cutting board do you? That's what the plastic one is for :)

[Liberal Veteran]

31. Eww...Is that toilet and tub light blue? How tacky.

When I moved into my house, the toilet, sink, and tub were lilac.

Now only the tub is lilac.

When I can afford it, I will have the tub replaced or enameled to a more appropriate color.

[snooper2]

57. reglazing is the way to go...

http://tubreglaze.com/default.aspx

Also, my buddy who does remodels told me (don't know if it's the right way) that he has seen the guys use car bondo to fix chips and what not before reglazing :eyes:

Guess it's a good multi-purpose agent :)

[pipi_k]

134. Can't decide

if the tub and toilet in my main bathroom are very light lilac or a very light mauve-y pink.

Relics from the 70s, I think, before we bought the house in '96.

It's so old the toilet even flushes with the full water load. Can't get toilets like that nowadays...you get barely enough water per flush to drown a sheet of Charmin.

[Fumesucker]

17. I haven't made enough money to do a tax return..

:rofl: yourself..

[Fire Walk With Me]

2. Perhaps they have already done the math and concluded a rational fee for the site

which would allow them to do their jobs and not suffer while doing it, as it should be?

Saying that in general, not directed at the OP.

[MjolnirTime]

5. They concluded that ads make more than donations.

This is just a means to generate more ad revenue.

Too many were avoiding them for a year for $5

My question is,
is DU a non-profit??

I can understand paying a Database admin's salary.
But with a policy like this, there will be profit. Where does it go?

[WolverineDG]

10. IF DU is a non-profit organization, that doesn't mean they can't make a profit

Just that whatever they do make gets plowed back into DU, not individual shareholders' pockets.

http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.115

dg

[MjolnirTime]

19. Profit in someone's pocket is different than reinvestment, obviously

I don't know that DU is a non-profit. Is it?
Just wondering.

The new policy will assure profit beyond the expenses necessary to maintain this site. Where does it go?

[WolverineDG]

61. Obviously they've use past profits to buy more servers & bandwidth

and to pay themselves (shock! horror!). I presume that's where the future profits, if any, would go. Boggles my mind how folks expect the admins to run DU out of the goodness of their hearts while keeping all the bells & whistles running smoothly.

dg

[MjolnirTime]

115. they will make more money with the new policy then they ever have.

It is definitely ok for salaries to be paid and reinvestment to occur.
But there will be more than that. What happens then?

[WolverineDG]

117. Does it matter to you?

when did it become against the law to make money? :eyes:

dg

[lumberjack_jeff]

99. No, DU is an LLC. It is not a non-profit. n/t

[Amerigo Vespucci]

23. Subscriber fees, ad revenue, or both

1). Whatever DU is making in ad revenue, it's apparently not enough to pay overhead and turn a profit

2). Current "fund drive" model offers opportunity to make a donation in any amount and receive a star for a year. Also allows other DUers to make a donation in any amount on behalf of another DUer so that they can have a star.

3). New "fixed rate" monthly fee eliminates the need for fund drives because the minimum donation amount is fixed by Skinner, not the person donating. Some will balk at the idea of $60 a year for DU (or whatever the final figure ends up being). Others will balk at paying $60 on behalf of another DUer so they can have a star.

4). I am assuming some thought and analysis went into "trending" in past fund drives. Realizing that 100% of DU will never be happy no matter what decisions are made, it looks like the new model is "this is what it costs to play."

5). Adobe sells Photoshop for $700+ and Photoshop Elements for $150. The difference? The full-blown Photoshop is a professional tool for photographers, graphic artists, and Web designers. Photoshop Elements removes the high-end functionality that the majority of "hobbyists" will never use.

So DU will charge $60 a year for people who like to have a star, post polls, use DU search, have a custom avatar, and whatever Skinner, EarlG and Elad toss into DU3 to sweeten the deal. Those who pay play with those toys. Those who don't simply post.

Not my Website, not my decision, and if you go back to the long-standing DU rules, Skinner's statement about those who don't like it can leave is still present.

My personal preference would be for the admins to set up a separate forum for people to "vent" about the new structure, because if we don;t have that, we WILL have:

1). People pissing and moaning in scores of threads in GD, the Lounge, and elsewhere

2). People pissing and moaning about the scores of threads in GD, the Lounge, and elsewhere.

In short, bring an umbrella so you don;t get wet.

:silly:

[Atman]

36. +100

Well stated

[CTyankee]

54. Yep, just because they are liberals, it doesn't mean they can't do the math.

I trust this is the case and they found this to be the best plan going forward.

[livvy]

3. How about a lower rate if you are donating a star to another member?

[zabet]

4. It is not that I am happy

dealing with the ads......I just simply cannot afford to donate ANY. I will be little to no help on suggestions for an easy and painless way for people to pay who cannot afford it. :shrug:

[snooper2]

6. Look at what you just wrote- people to pay who cannot afford it..

You know what, if you have an issue paying $5.00 or whatever it is a month to a website....

Listen here- to a freaking website (that isn't actually providing you a service like Match.com or AutoTrader.com)


And you are sitting there worried sick about how you can pay your DU bill. You have your priorities so fucked up you probably need a financial intervention.


:eyes: :eyes: :eyes: :eyes:

[boston bean]

12. just plain old mean. I get why you don't give a shit. And it isn't pretty. nt

[snooper2]

21. So you think people who are in a poor financial situation should be giving any disposable income

to random websites on the intertubes?


It's not being mean, it's just good flipping advice.

[Atman]

39. Waitaminute! No discussion here...Xabet doesn't have a star NOW.

So WTF difference will it make. Snooper's reply might have been a bit harsh, but it was also totally irrelevant, because the poster won't see any/many changes, since he/she isn't paying even the minimum $5. So what is his/her complaint? "I couldn't afford $5 before, so I can't afford $5 now, so this sucks? What am I missing here?

[zabet]

108. You are missing

the fact that I have been a contributing donor more than I have not since I joined this website.

Pssst.....hey y'all, spAtman likes me, he REALLY likes me! :rofl:

[zabet]

52. Amazing...

the perceptive abilities you have to gather that much info out of an internet post. :eyes: I am not worried about it in the least, I fully realize what I can and cannot afford and throwing money away on a few hours a week on a website is not one of them.
My priorities are far from 'fucked up' as you put it......I just stated a fact. Plain and simple. Now, you can write the Cracker Jack company and complain about that 'degree' you got in the last box you ate because it ain't worth a crap for deductive reasoning.
:eyes:

[Atman]

58. Again, zabet doesn't pay anything NOW.

How will it change anything for zabet? Why is he/she so concerned.

[zabet]

107. I paid when things

were better financially. I almost died due to an on the job accident, my SO of 27 yrs recently passed.....so as is the norm......my life is in constant flux. Your admirable concern for for how things will change for me is duly noted. :eyes:

[Atman]

109. Hey, the post was not directed at you! Chill...

...and don't worry about your membership for next year. ;)

I honestly don't recall seeing your name on DU before, and I've been here a long time. I was just using your name as an example because you were a non-donating member. I wasn't making any comment about you personally, or your situation, just about how things wont change much for people who currently have to deal with ads anyway. Accept my apologies, and hopefully a year from now this won't be a concern for you. Peace.

[zabet]

124. No worries...

and thanks so very much for the star. I read more than post and also underwent a name change last time it was done. Again, your kindness is greatly appreciated and even more so, greatly unexpected. I fully intend to pay it forward when I get things 'all raked up into a manageable pile' again.

:hug:

:toast:

[Zorra]

8. I propose the creation of a slush fund so that those of us that can

afford it can donate extra above and beyond the $42 to pay help pay for stars for some of those current members of our DU community that are not at this time fortunate enough to have the disposable income to pay for a yearly membership.

Would could create a pool of folks that need assistance and distribute memberships through the results of a monthly drawing of names.

Bugs would need to be worked out, of course.

[RC]

20. Now that is a good idea.

I normally donate $50 a year. I can still do this and then $8 could go into the special fund.

[Zorra]

29. Exactly.

No upstanding member of our DU community should ever have to be exposed to those horrible advertisements.
;-)

[seabeyond]

37. yup. i might even step it up a tad, but we are watching our $, too. nt

[Klukie]

34. Exactly what i was thinking +1

[seabeyond]

35. i almost used exactly same words as you, lol. creative slush fund. nt

[Zorra]

90. Interesting.

Here's your post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=439&topic_id=2302902#2303166

You know what they say about great minds...;-)

You liberals and your egalitarian democracy stuff. sheesh.
:hug:

[seabeyond]

98. ya. isnt that funny. and a couple of posters are taking it beyond. nt

[NBachers]

45. I agree with the slush fund. I'd donate to it

[ProfessorGAC]

77. Also Proposed By Seabeyond. . .

. . .in another thread. If the flat fee is $42, then any excess above that by donors like you or me could be used in $42 dollar increment to provide long time DU'ers who can't afford the new fee with membership.

I've been donating $5 per month for nearly a decade. I can still continue to do so. That extra $18, and your ten, gets us 2/3rds of the way toward another star.
GAC

[Logical]

9. Way too sane of a post here! People would rather freak out and throw a fit!

[SidDithers]

13. How 'bout this for equitable...

It's fair and equitable that all DU'ers contribute to the maintenance of the site.

DU'ers who choose to do so, can make that contribution in the form of a donation to the site.

DU'ers who don't make a donation will make that contribution by viewing ads which generate revenue for the site.


That sounds equitable to me.

Sid

[boston bean]

18. Oh, so if you can't afford it, you can be bombarded with ads that will pay for your way.

or you can do with less than what some of the elite on DU have.

Yeah, quite equitable, not...

Those who don't have the $$ make a contribution by being here, period. Giving their thoughts, their traffic. To make it less user friendly to them doesn't take into consideration the contribution they have already given. Just being here and posting is a contribution.

If they weren't here, DU wouldn't exist.

[Atman]

41. Sorry, that is bordering on crazy talk.

Your "contribution" is simply being here? Admittedly, the larger pool of ideas is good, but lose the self-importance. Did you consider the number of moles and trolls who are also here simply as non-paying disrupters? Are they equally valuable? Maybe a $42 membership fee would weed some of them out. But it is a stretch to say that your "contribution" -- hanging out and usin the site for free -- helps pay the bills. It only does if you're willing to put up with the ads.

[greyl]

129. It borders on an excellent point to remember. A site is nothing without content.

Some(other) sites actually pay people to create content for them, believe it or not. ;)
Now, of course all the content created by DUers doesn't have equal value, but it is all measurable value.

Beyond that, just giving hits to a site without posting anything adds some degree of value to a website.

My main point is that it's definitely not "crazy talk" to say that adding content to a site contributes to it.

[MineralMan]

47. Elite? I see a star beside your screen name.

Some sites I visit are ones I don't donate to. I see ads on those sites. Other sites are valuable enough to me that I donate to them, not so I won't see ads, but so the site will stay active. Ads are meaningless. I just ignore them, if they appear.

People who don't donate to DU will still be able to particpate in DU. That's why people come here, I believe. They read, post, explore, and use DU just like everyone else. They can't post a poll? How many polls have you seen lately that were meaningful or useful? They can't post in groups. Well, in DU3, they will be able to. In fact, they will be able to do much more in DU3 than they can now.

I'll be signing up for the monthly donation. No big deal. Or, maybe I'll pop for a year. Money's tight at my house, too, but I spend a lot of time on DU. I pay for cable TV service, even though I watch TV only a couple of hours a day. I pay for a daily newspaper so I can get the local news. Lots of ads in there, too. I drink coffee. That costs money and isn't all that good for me. I choose to support DU, not so I can post polls and skip ads, but because I think it is a valuable resource and want to see it continue.

You can, of course, do as you please. You could even start your own discussion forum, if you wanted to. If you did, you'd soon learn just how much work and heartache it involves.

[JuniperLea]

122. I never really liked the star, either...

Perhaps I should ask for half a star... a triangle... you know...

[phleshdef]

51. Stop pretending that ads somehow do harm to you. They don't.

No one of a serious mind is buying that bullshit.

[lbrtbell]

104. Ads do harm to people with slow connections

They make a page take a LONG time to load, even for people like me who have fast connections. Many ads have crashed my browser, no matter what browser I use. Which means that said page is literally inaccessible if you're on dial-up.

Sure, you can get an ad blocker if you use Firefox...but the majority of people don't use Firefox.

[Atman]

106. No, ads do not "harm" people with slow connections.

The ads might inconvenience them, but not harm them. And they are given the option of paying in order to eliminate. I know, I know, it doesn't mean that you can AFFORD to pay, but that is the nature of the game. As for your slow connection and your browser crashing, there likely is no correlation. Have you kept your browser up to date? Why would a slow-loading ad crash your browser? If so, then it would also crash a browser on a high speed connection. How old is your computer? You mixed a lot of stuff in there that don't hold up to cause-and-effect scrutiny. I see it as very little different than owning an old beater car. Sure, it gets you there most of the time. You have frequent problems with it. You can afford to upgrade, so you're stuck with what you've got until you can save up for a new one, or win a sweepstakes. But you are not HARMED. You are inconvenienced. But you also have internet access and a computer, so I suppose it could be even worse, right? I'm not trying to smug and elitist, as I'm sure the usual suspects will cry out. I'm just pointing out the fallacy of your statement, to try and keep this contentious issue in perspective.

[phleshdef]

112. If you have that slow of a connection, you are going to have a lot of problems with a lot of sites.

And a slow connection has absolutely nothing to do with something crashing your browser. If your browser is crashing that frequently, you've got a corrupt install or some kind of malware problem.

[pipi_k]

139. Meh...I used to have a slow connection

Never got "harmed" by it. Just really annoyed.

[Ruby the Liberal]

75. So download a FREE ad blocker for your browser.

[Coyote_Bandit]

67. Are you goig to put some quality control on those ads

or are some folks going to be forced to view that shocking meat video ad or the vibrator ad or something similar everytime they use DU?

[Ruby the Liberal]

74. There isn't a browser on the market that doesn't have an ad blocker.

for free. Free browser, free ad blocker.

Next?

[Coyote_Bandit]

79. Guess what?

Lots of folks who use DU at work don't have the ability to install one of those free adblockers - and likely don't want to have such content visible on their screen or subject to IT review for tripping the network filters.

I'm guessing that if everybody who can't afford or doesn't want to contribute to DU would just download those free adblcokers that the ads would go away. No need to advertise if nobody views the ad, right?

[Ruby the Liberal]

81. So, its ok to you that people surf DU while on the clock, on their employer's dime?

This is getting a little ridiculous.

[Coyote_Bandit]

83. Follow DU during the day

when there is breaking news and you will find the cube rats complaining all the time bacuase they cannot follow breaking news or press conferences on TV.

A search will also show that many of the smae folks complained about those very ads because they were visible on their work PCs.

Me? I'm a long-term jobless schmuck. If I had a job I'd buy a star.

I wouldn't have thought of surfing DU at either of my last two jobs where every keystroke was logged and every phone call recorded. I live in an employment at will state and have seen bosses watch the parking lots to determine whether or not it was their employees driving the cars with liberal and democratic bumper stickers. That kind of stuff will get you fired here.

Still, I'd just as soon the folks here who have jobs don't lose them because they were surfing DU and tripped a network porn filter because of a vibrator ad.

[Ruby the Liberal]

92. So, first its the unemployed who can't afford it, now its all about

the employed who can't surf DU at work because of vibrator ads? Is anyone NOT a victim of Skinner's diabolical plan?

My last employer blocked DU (and half the internet). I got my news from cnn.com

How on earth did people survive before the internet?

This whole argument just saddens me to no end.

[Atman]

110. +10

:(

[dkf]

95. How do you block it on an iPhone/iPad?

That's worse because I really don't want to be looking at a pic of a vibrator in the elevator.

And yes i multitask.

[SidDithers]

96. I think a mobile version of DU3 is in the works...

which might help with iPhone use.

Sid

[Atman]

111. Just clear your cache, cookies and history when you're done surfing porn.

You can block them all using Private Browsing on Safari on a full-size Mac, but you don't get that option on the iPhone/iPad. The adbheckler the cookie to check out where you've been and serve up ads accordingly. ;)

You don't necessarily have to clear the history and cache, but it's a good idea in that it prevents autofill from completing the URL for you, which can be quite embarrassing if someone else happens to be using your iPad or iPhone to access the Internet.

Of course, this is just what a friend told me.

[dkf]

113. Lol. How uncomfy would that be to ride in an elevator with a person looking up porn huh?

Eek.

[dkf]

94. Yeah those two ads were too much.

My star helped so I didn't see them much but I have to say they are driving my decision so that I almost feel it is necessary to pony up

[Orangepeel]

130. The anti-meat ad and the vibrator ad were visible to donors, too

:shrug:

[Bonhomme Richard]

14. If more people gave during the fundraisers maybe we wouldn't be having....

this discussion.
Go ahead and flame but I have a hard time grasping how someone can use this site daily, put up thousands of post, talk about the new gun they bought and still not send a check for $5 or $10 bucks. It baffles my mind unless there is another reason for not contributing anything.
Maybe I have never been poor enough but it seems to me if you are not living in a tent, using someones old thrown out computer and stealing net service and electricity then you can afford to send in a couple of bucks to get a star. And we are only talking a couple of bucks.
I prefer the old way for donating but DU is a business and there is no free ride.
And if you really can't afford it then seeing a few ads is a small price.
I am going to duck now.

[Fumesucker]

22. The fundraisers always meet their goal..

:shrug:

[Bonhomme Richard]

38. Good point. So why change unless it's to increase revenue?

Which is OK with me since I think the admins do a good job and it isn't cheap to live in the DC area.

[Uben]

15. Money-saving ideas......

..outsource moderating to India and move bank accounts to the Caribbean to shield from taxes. Repossess non-paying memberships.
Hire Coin-Tel to collect monies. Hire Abramhoff as PR rep. Consult BErnie Madoff for profit-enhancing ideas.





(attn:The above post was intended to be humor. All death threats and dissention will be handled by Xe)

[Cirque du So-What]

16. My primary objection to the fee structure

is that $60/year in payments vs. $42/year in a lump sum is regressive in nature. Those with the means will see $42 in one whack no big deal, but those who can't come up with that amount all at once are penalized.

[Whisp]

33. sort of like those predatory money marts.

or not.

but I do see your point - the ones who can afford it get the breaks. Like the tax system.

[Atman]

43. I think that's a vert valid argument.

It seems to be against what a lot of DU is about.

[phleshdef]

56. Right because viewing ads while you use a website is SUCH a penalty!!!

I can't believe how babyfied supposed grown ass adults can become over stuff like this.

[Atman]

65. We click on video links in posts, newspaper links in posts...they all bring me to ADS.

Yet I PAY to be an ad-free member of DU. Ads are the way the web works. It's the only reason many sites that we all enjoy can survive at all, even the freakin' porn sites. Your kid's little league field has ads on the outfield fence. The subway has ads on the ceilings and walls. Ads pay for shit. Sucks, maybe, but that is life in our capitalist society. The whiners on here, most of whom seem to be using DU for free anyway, are astounding. "Babyfied." I agree completely.

[Cirque du So-What]

70. I don't see ads

The Firefox adblocker works quite well, thank you. How 'adult' is it to come in and drop insults?

[phleshdef]

78. I consider insults to be quite adult. Theres nothing more childish than expecting a world where...

...everyone kisses your ass and no one tells you what they really think.

Its just words. I'm not throwing a tantrum and threatening to leave the site because I might be subjected to ads if I don't help directly pay for some very expensive upkeep. Nothing is free. Grownups realize this.

[Shagbark Hickory]

24. I've said it before, I'll say it again. An OP on DU GD should cost $1

It would make money.
And it would get people to think first prior to posting every random thought that crosses their mind and cut down on bandwidth wasting low quality posts like mine.

There could be some discounts for people that have earned a reputation for quality through a system of points awarded by other members and perhaps a free post allowance per month. Maybe several free OPs per month that way everyone regardless of income can still participate and have the opportunity to earn "reputation points".

You'd charge up your account $10 at a time that way there isn't a transaction fee for each post. Gift cards can also be sold and given to others. Gift cards have the potential to be a huge money maker obviously.

Replies would still be free though and OPs in some other forums like the lounge would be free.

[Fumesucker]

40. Good way to exclude those tiresome poor people... n/t

[Shagbark Hickory]

87. How so? Did you read my post at all? Even one word of it?

No, you clearly did not.

[snooper2]

62. The Poster "The Straight Story" should be excluded from that

That's who posts all the good articles I would never find elsewhere...

And the articles that generate the greatest flame wars lol

[Shagbark Hickory]

88. That's why a system of earning points for free posts could be implemented

based on the quality of posts and overall favorability of the poster.

The straight story and many others who add value to the site by contributing content and discussion topics would then be rewarded with the ability for a low or no cost ability to continue doing so.

[n2doc]

85. DU would end at that point

Period. No one would pay that kind of money to post. And the OP's are what MAKE DU. I don't come here to get into snarky battles with people, I come here for the news, op eds, etc that people post.

[Shagbark Hickory]

89. But members like you wouldn't pay to post.

Members like me would.

[n2doc]

97. Yeah. All 10 of you.

Plus the folks spamming their blog pages.

[Shagbark Hickory]

101. It's a system that works very well for the other media outlets.

[pipi_k]

135. It could be quite profitable...

at certain times...

The $1 per OP, I mean.

I remember during that Glenn Beck rally in DC this past summer, I actually counted the number of threads I ended up hiding and it was near 100.

Then the Anthony Weiner incident.

And I'm only talking about here in GD. People aren't happy to have just one thread...no...everybody has to have his/her OWN thread on the same damned topic.

Hey...fine. Pay for it. Actually, maybe the fee could be applied to every redundant thread on the same issue.

Oh, and a $1 for recs. That would sure cut down on the complaints about people who rec threads with no thought other than that they're written by friends.

Then, a $1 fee for every whining, "Why was my post deleted???" question in ATA.

Then a $1 penalty for people who have posts deleted because they can't follow the very basic rules here against not insulting others. Hey, if they never learned it in Kindergarten, then they'll learn to control themselves after being penalized a few times.

The above suggestions are half-serious, half tongue-in-cheek...

;)

[Shagbark Hickory]

136. As Bartles & Jaymes used to say...

"Thank You for your support"

[pipi_k]

138. Not familiar

with what Bartles and Jaymes have ever had to say, although I know who/what they are.

so please explain the context here...

[Shagbark Hickory]

140. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bartles_%26_Jaymes
(the paragraph about TV commercials)
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7WeZbRbxwg
...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXj9sj3QsSg

[WolverineDG]

25. People are going to complain regardless

Skinner could set the donation to $1/month & there would still be howling about it. If people can still post for free & have access to the site for free, what's to complain about?

dg

[CTyankee]

60. I think the reaction is inevitable, really. People naturally don't like a benefit to be taken

away from them. It seems to me that the admins had no real alternative. I don't think they have a cavalier attitude about poorer DUers, but I can see how it can be interpreted that way.

[LWolf]

26. I think the current structure is more equitable.

The bottom line? The new system will be great for those who can afford a monthly contribution, or a big yearly contribution.

It's not great for those who can't, and it discourages the star donations that have been traditional.

It widens the gap between the haves and have-nots. That's not traditionally Democratic value.

The current system still requires donations to get the star, but DUers can donate what they can afford. They can still get their star if they can't afford $42 or a monthly donation, and people can still afford to donate stars to those who can't get them otherwise.

I guess some of the questions might be: Is DU not generating enough revenue with the current system? How much is enough? Is it really a "business?" A "business" is something designed to make a profit, over and above what it takes to run that business. That's not the mission stated here:

Democratic Underground (DU) was founded on Inauguration Day, January 20, 2001, to protest the illegitimate presidency of George W. Bush and to provide a resource for the exchange and dissemination of liberal and progressive ideas. Since then, DU has become one of the premier left-wing websites on the Internet, publishing original content six days a week, and hosting one of the Web's most active left-wing discussion boards.

[Whisp]

27. Until it's explained what the privilege difference is between a member and non

we will just go in circles.

If there is No difference, then the donors are contributing just out of the goodness of their hearts and not for any perks. That could work I guess - there seems to be a fair amount of people here willing to pay the extra dollars, but I wonder if they would be willing to pay if they weren't getting anything special out of the deal.

[Atman]

46. I can tell you, I probably wouldn't pay extra for nothing extra.

My priorities are, in order:

Helping support the site (when it was still growing...I've been a paying member for a long time, glad to see the business succeed).

Ability to use the search and other "special" features.

Eliminating the ads.

[dipsydoodle]

30. Eleven and a half cents a day

is really gonna screw the 99%

[peace13]

32. I'm cool with 11.5 cents a day especially since he is offering next year for five bucks if you need ...

Over the years when I have had issues with moderators or rules folks have reminded me that this is private board and Skinner can do what he wants. Well.....right back at you guys who are complaing. He has offered a transition into the new year for a trial of the new system. If it isn't worth five bucks to you then why the fight over the new system. This is a business. How many businesses can run on the hopes of donations. With monthly income comes the ability to plan, to pay employees and possibly hire more, to know how the electric bill will be paid four months from now.

[Coyote_Bandit]

42. Reward positive participation and substantive commentary

Anyone who posts more than X times in General Discussion during a specified period of time gets the annual fee waived provided:
(1) they do not have any posts on DU deleted for rule violations
(2) they do not have more than Y number of posts alerted on for rule violations;
(3) their posts are substantative;
(4) they do not appear on more than Z number of ignore lists;
(5) they embrace diversity and do not directly or indirectly denigrate anyone.


I'm long-term unemployed and cannot afford the annual donation. That same $42 will (1) pay a month of trash, water and sewer service; (2) pay a month of phone service, cable tv or internet service; (3) purchase t-shirts for my summer warbrobe or an ample supply of new skivvies and socks; (4) buy enough gasoline to enable me to visit my elderly parents or provide me local transportation for 2 or 3 weeks or mow my grass for the entire summer; (5) feed me for a most of a week (6) pay over two-thirds of my annual car tag fee or the expenses associated with one of my two annual oil changes or a number of other needs and expenses that take priority over having a DU star.

I've been here without a star before. If I must do it again then so be it. But I will not subject myself to that frickin shocking meat video ad (or something similar). That will prompt a long vacation.

[lumberjack_jeff]

93. I'm not sure that your provisions promote your goal.

Unless photos of kitties and puppies define positive and substantive participation. DU would become "democratic uncontroversial"

[Marrah_G]

44. Skinner-- Here is my suggestion

Make it 3.50 a month period. Don't make those who cant afford to pay a year in advance pay MORE then those who can.

[RegieRocker]

50. Pledges would be ok. What ever the amount.

[CTyankee]

68. they might have considered that but it didn't work out in the math.

I'm guessing that this was a business decision, based on running the numbers. I don't like it, even tho I paid the whole $42 in one shot (but I did that more to just get it done). I can see how even $42 in one shot can be a lot for people on the edge financially. And it is clear that there ARE DUers who are in that situation.

[Ruby the Liberal]

71. Transaction costs to transfer those funds would kill that.

It isn't cheaper to pay once per year because someone is trying to benefit the 'wealthy', it is because every time a transaction occurs (1x year vs 12x year) fees are assessed.

[RegieRocker]

48. Not a good idea.

The cost for hosting should be minimal. Maintenance if doing yourself is free. A forum is a risky business venture. It needs thousand of people to get advertisers. A yearly fee will drive most away. The end result will be a good ole boys club.

[Atman]

53. "A yearly fee will drive most away." Care to substantiate that?

A yearly fee will drive SOME away. You're not taking into account the vast number of posters who already pay NOTHING. IOW, they're tolerating the ads now. They'll tolerate them in the future, as the community is more important than the inconvenience of the ads. The fee hopefully will drive away MOST of the moles and trolls for the other underground and the cave dwellers. But there is nothing to back up your assertions that MOST of those who are already willing to donate or willing to tolerate ads will cease posting. Nothing.

[RegieRocker]

59. The future will be my evidence. I have seen it happen many times.

If there are ads now why the change? Your assertions have no substance. What is wrong with a open pledge? Answer that or don't reply.

[Atman]

64. I'll reply whether you want me to or not, thank you very much!

My assertions have not substance -- although they most certainly do -- yet you refused to offer any substance to back up your claim that MOST people would leave a free site for which MOST people don't pay in the first place.

You miss an important point...MOST people posting are already doing so for FREE. That will not change. Why will they suddenly flock from DU because others will have to pay a fixed rate instead of dealing with quarterly fund drives? Answer that or....who gives a shit what you think will happen, since you have absolutely nothing to back it up.

[RegieRocker]

66. You know nothing about conversation. You're not the King and this

isn't the kingshiway. A reply is addressing what another person wrote. You did not answer question therefore you gave an avoidance statement. Not a reply. Cya.

[Atman]

73. Is this meant to be a joke? Really, I mean it...

YOU started by making a totakky UNSUBSTANTIATED claim that the new fee structure would cause most people to leave DU. I called you on it, asked for substantiation, and explained why you hypothesis didn't hold water.

YOU reply with a total non-reply telling me "the future" is your evidence. WTF does that mean? Talk about an "avoidance statement!" And then you have the nerve to tell me I cannot reply unless I can refute your claim to the future? Clearly this is satire, right? You're just trying (and failing) to be funny, right? Otherwise, you're just being ridiculous.

[RegieRocker]

126. The joke is on you. Didn't bother to read your blather.

Because that is all it is. You still didn't answer the question. Why? More blathering.

[Ruby the Liberal]

72. And who puts food on the table for those hosting the site or doing maintenance?

Look, I am likely way to the left of the average member on this site, but some of these comments are pure stupidity.

People need to be able to eat and shelter themselves - and they do this by providing goods and services to others.

Unless you live in a bubble where everything is free, nobody works and everyone just magically has the money to put up websites for you to read and contribute on (for free), you are making zero sense.

[leftstreet]

100. How much would be raised from $42 per member per year?

:shrug:

[Autumn]

49. I'm going to be here. Star or no star

This place has been an oasis in the desert all through the Bush years when a lot of us were stuck in Bush hell. I appreciate it.

[CTyankee]

63. boy, do I ever remember the cold, gray dawn of 2005 when the reality of

Kerry losing really sank in...it was godawful. If it hadn't have been for DU and Stephanie Miller, I would have nearly lost my mind (which is not to say I hadn't already lost it due to other things!). I guess I am really grateful to have this community to mourn with, bitch with, cry with...

[Ruby the Liberal]

69. Get rid of the damned star.

[Phentex]

76. That's very interesting...

no one would know who gave money. The only ones who'd know would be the people who see the ads or not. Hmmm...

[beac]

80. That is a "damned" good idea.

Pay for the privilege of no ads and "special features and access" (whatever that's going to mean, since it apparently won't mean what it does now) but you don't get a "SEE WHAT I BOUGHT!" public receipt.

The star indicated "I donated." Now that there will be no more donations, the stars should expire with the fund drives.

[Atman]

82. Un-recs for asking for something POSITIVE

There were several positive recs for a whiIe. Can't have that! love DU! :rofl:

How about a new system where you have to pay per rec/unrec? :)

[marlakay]

84. $20-30 a year discount for senior/low incomes

I said that on a few other posts. I just think $42 is too much per year when you are already cutting out all extras in your budget.

[backscatter712]

86. How about several levels of stars?

Bronze Star, Silver Star, Gold Star, for donating $5, $25, $100 respectively. Stars good for a year.

Maybe this comes closer to encouraging people to give what they can, since lots of us can donate intermittently, or donate small amounts, but can't write big checks.

[lumberjack_jeff]

91. My idea: paid contributors.

Donations/fees/contributions/dues go into an account. "Recommending" a post actually costs 15 cents from the reader's account with a nickel of that going to DU and the rest going to the poster's account. If your account goes to zero, you lose your star (and your ability to recommend posts).

As writers elevate their game to attract readers, the level of dialog improves and donors are more likely to donate. As writers accounts grow, they recommend others posts generously.

Call it the DU economy. We're helping one another at the same time that we help DU. If DU is "not just a business, but a community", then I think this idea has a lot going for it.

[Shagbark Hickory]

102. What a fantastic idea.

It helps improve quality and at the same time, people voluntarily donate when they're most eager to. I like it.

Of course you'd still have to get people to pay some in advance for credits. 30 cent transaction fees on a 15 cent purchase wont work.

[lumberjack_jeff]

114. I envision that the *actual* transactions would take place monthly

To be cost effective, day to day administration of the fund would have to be at DU and not a bank.

Mr Lumberjack started the month with $35 in his account. He recommended 120 posts, and wasn't recommended at all. $18 (120 * $0.15)is deducted from his account, of which $6 goes to DU. His ending balance is $17
Mr Hickory started the month with $35. He recommended 70 posts, and had 100 of his own recommended. $0.50 is deducted from his account (-$10.50 + $10.00) of which $5.25 goes to DU. His ending balance is $34.50

The biggest challenge is administration obviously, but I think that DU could make more money and provide a more attractive product this way.

[Shagbark Hickory]

132. I agree.

The flip side is they'll also need some customer service contacts too because it's obviously more complex and more people will have questions about it and more things can go haywire. But people that volunteer as CSRs could earn credits too.

[lbrtbell]

103. Suggestion: If it ain't broke, don't fix it

DU has been running along quite well under the current structure. People like me are currently able to donate, but our money will be lost under the new system. Sure, there are those who will be able to afford $42/year, but will that really make up for us smaller donors? Nine donors of $5 actually provide DU with more money than one $42/year donor.

Ads aren't the solution, because honestly--how many people click on them? No clicks, no money.

IMHO, this new system is going to fail. When it comes to jacking up rates on customers (and we donors are customers) the lure of more money invariably backfires. BofA learned this the hard way with the debit card fees. I fear that DU will learn this the hard way, as well.

I know there are a lot of sycophants who will disparage what I've written. But I'm more concerned with the fate of DU, than I am about polishing the apple on the teacher's desk. True caring is about honesty, even if the honesty hurts.

[Zorra]

105. I do not understand why so many people are unreccing this democratically

oriented thread.

Why are some Duers negative on discussing ideas that the admins may consider if they believe the ideas have merit?

Seriously.
:wtf:

[Amerigo Vespucci]

116. You want Skinner to suggest installing a browser with an ad blocker?

I don't think Skinner's actively soliciting ideas, whether they are positive or negative. He knows what he wants, and that's what he'll end up doing. Maybe his recent post was a litmus test. Maybe it wasn't. Who knows, except Skinner?

[Atman]

118. What? My post wasn't addressed to Skinner.

Clearly it would make no sense for Skinner to block the ads he is basing his business on. Where the hell did you get that? My post was addressed to the DUers reading it, not Skinner, so in my final sentence, when I said "maybe you could install a browser with an ad blocker," did you really think I was talking to Skinner?

BTW, I donate, yet the main pages STILL have ads on them. They're not as big, and they don't appear in the middle of threads, but even a donation doesn't eliminate ALL advertising. Just the worst of it.

[hlthe2b]

119. I think there have been a LOT of positive ideas interspersed in these threads...

I take issue that people are just "complaining" while offering no constructive alternative solutions.

[JuniperLea]

120. I'm too stunned... I could afford to pay that...

But will I? I don't know... seems too elitist to me. I feel so badly for all those who can't pay, but who are still big posters here... people we would ordinarily chip in to buy stars for. This just feels like greed and sadness to me... not sure how to get past this... feels dirty to even post here right now.

So icky... :cry:

I'm seeing cheering and ass kissing that feels far too much like cheering the ugly things in life we're all pissed at right now... so icky. :cry:

My suggestion would be to leave it alone and let us nickle and dime DU... this is the kinder, gentler way to be. We don't need no stinkin' class war... no lines that separate... no holier than the next guy.


Edited to say... I'm too busy for ads. I work 50+ hours a week and drive another 10... I don't pay for cable because it's a rip off... I really can't see myself paying for this.

[hlthe2b]

123. I am taken aback by so many unfazed by the whole move...

and the incredibly insensitive timing of its announcement. I do feel some ownership stake in DU after more than 10 years and donating whatever I could possibly afford to do to make it succeed. It hurts me to see such a crass turn from the egalitarian premise upon which DU emerged and thrived. I feel badly for those who are hurting right now and who seem to be fair game for "sacrifice" at every turn. That such dismissive moves are also coming from the nation's largest online progressive forum, seems inexplicable to me.

[JuniperLea]

125. I think we are in the same space...

:hug:

Bizarro world!

I'm thinking I'd rather donate another $42 to Obama...

[woo me with science]

127. Very well said. nt

[Motown_Johnny]

121. Maybe some inventive adaptation of the Mobibo App

If DU could use something like this app (or the app itself) but have the money we all earn go to support this site it may be a way to create income without taking money out of the pockets of the people using this site.


http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/mornings/made_in_mich/mobibo-app-pays-you-as-you-go-20110929-mr

^snip^

Mobibo App Pays You as You Go

Updated: Thursday, 29 Sep 2011, 8:17 AM EDT
Published : Thursday, 29 Sep 2011, 8:15 AM EDT

By Jason Carr | FOX 2 News

(WJBK) - A local company has launched a mobile application designed to pay you to check out great deals in your area.

Mobibo is an opt-in service that provides promotions, rewards and discounts to subscribers through their smartphone when they are in close proximity to a participating store or brand.

[SidDithers]

128. In a heartbeat, I'd pay $0.99 for a DU iPhone App...nt

Sid

[Hamlette]

131. why don't they keep it the way it is? Do they need more funds? n/t

[woo me with science]

133. Is Skinner looking for other ideas?

It sounded to me like he was announcing the new policy, not opening a discussion to elicit other ideas.

[XemaSab]

137. My thread was calling for $1 a month, so it would be $12 at a time

I think $10 for three months would also be fair, and would encourage the gifting of stars.

[deaniac21]

141. Why am I thinking of Netflix?