[nobthehobbit]

This is incredibly distasteful.

I agree. Vote-selling and vote-buying goes contrary to the spirit of the PoR.

[OKCoyote]

I think you're preaching to the choir on this one -- Allen's been a longtime advocate for requiring all CC members to pay their dues to cast a vote.

I would be offended (as would my Promenade page) by anyone who inferred I didn't contribute financially to the continuation of this site, simply because I had a green badge.

[Honest]

By all means let the CC Members keep free premium. It is part of the compensation for keeping the wheels turning.

My issue is when it comes to votes, the CC doesn't have to pay for votes, the rest of the community does. That automatically makes bringing about change very difficult. So if you are on the CC, and you want to vote, then pay your money like everyone else.

Either that, or change the criteria for voting eligibility.

Honest

[pfti]

Since I am still a green badge (as of now) I hereby pledge to pay dues before the election

#samecriteraforallvoters

[JeBuS]

By all means let the CC Members keep free premium. It is part of the compensation for keeping the wheels turning.

My issue is when it comes to votes, the CC doesn't have to pay for votes, the rest of the community does. That automatically makes bringing about change very difficult. So if you are on the CC, and you want to vote, then pay your money like everyone else.

Either that, or change the criteria for voting eligibility.

Honest

I don't mind continuing to pay for my membership. I think my paid annual membership still goes through April, so it wouldn't affect me either way.

Perhaps there should be a separate tier of membership for voting? So you'd have the 'free' membership level, which is basically what non-paying site users have now. Then you'd have the 'premium' membership level, which unlocks the paid features of the site. And a third level for 'voting' membership level, which gets you into the PoR. The premium membership would only be used for things like volunteer members (as we do today) and for "demonstration" purposes, where we hand out 1-month memberships for various promotional reasons? CC volunteers would then need to pay for the 1-month (minimum) voting membership to take part in PoR, just like everyone else?

[BCSWowbagger]

By all means let the CC Members keep free premium. It is part of the compensation for keeping the wheels turning.

My issue is when it comes to votes, the CC doesn't have to pay for votes, the rest of the community does. That automatically makes bringing about change very difficult. So if you are on the CC, and you want to vote, then pay your money like everyone else.

As someone who has been not paid my dues for the past few years as a volunteer (and, yes, I should change that in the near future), I think Honest's position makes sense. Premium membership provides excellent compensation for us volunteers. We do pour in a ton of hours without pay, and it's nice to be able to use the good version of the deckbuilder for free as thanks.

But giving us a free vote biases the electorate. It'd be like if you were running a general election and required voter IDs, but anyone who worked for the government was exempt. #MakeMePay

I know it's probably too late to change voting eligibility for this year's PoR, but I'd like to see this discussed at a Board meeting some time during 2020.

[AllenGould]

Perhaps there should be a separate tier of membership for voting? So you'd have the 'free' membership level, which is basically what non-paying site users have now. Then you'd have the 'premium' membership level, which unlocks the paid features of the site. And a third level for 'voting' membership level, which gets you into the PoR. The premium membership would only be used for things like volunteer members (as we do today) and for "demonstration" purposes, where we hand out 1-month memberships for various promotional reasons? CC volunteers would then need to pay for the 1-month (minimum) voting membership to take part in PoR, just like everyone else?

I'd be fine with that - can set it to a plain $5/year voting membership, does what it says on the tin. (I'd also disable gifting for it.)

[Maelwys]

Personally, I'd go the other way on the issue.
Anybody that's played in X tournaments or made Y posts during the past year gets a free membership for the duration of the the vote. Nobody needs to pay anything, if you participate here, you've earned the vote. That participation can be volunteer hours, or it can be playing in events, or it can just be hanging out around the boards a lot, or it can be through a financial donation. All of those are things that are equally necessary to keep this place running, so all of those should earn you a chance to submit your feedback.

Not everybody can donate copious amounts of time to volunteering, or extra money to keep the server running. But that doesn't mean their opinions don't matter.

[jadziadax8]

I know it's probably too late to change voting eligibility for this year's PoR, but I'd like to see this discussed at a Board meeting some time during 2020.

On Sunday's agenda. (That'll be posted publicly next).

Personally, I'd go the other way on the issue.
Anybody that's played in X tournaments or made Y posts during the past year gets a free membership for the duration of the the vote. Nobody needs to pay anything, if you participate here, you've earned the vote. That participation can be volunteer hours, or it can be playing in events, or it can just be hanging out around the boards a lot, or it can be through a financial donation. All of those are things that are equally necessary to keep this place running, so all of those should earn you a chance to submit your feedback.

Not everybody can donate copious amounts of time to volunteering, or extra money to keep the server running. But that doesn't mean their opinions don't matter.

This point will also be considered.

[BCSWowbagger]

I know it's probably too late to change voting eligibility for this year's PoR, but I'd like to see this discussed at a Board meeting some time during 2020.

On Sunday's agenda. (That'll be posted publicly next).

Now that's what I call speedy service!

Maelwys's direction seems reasonable to me, too. (It's fairly close to what I suggested with my amendment back when the by-laws were under discussions. Hosp's position that it should be based on dues made some sense, though, and carried the day at the time.)

[AllenGould]

Maelwys's direction seems reasonable to me, too. (It's fairly close to what I suggested with my amendment back when the by-laws were under discussions. Hosp's position that it should be based on dues made some sense, though, and carried the day at the time.)

The problem I see with Mael's is that "played in X events" and "posted X times" are both easily gameable metrics. (The former is unverifiable, the latter is called "spam" )

Also, to use an example from my FLGS days - how many folks here spent $5 on printing PDFs of cards? Sleeves? Travel? Convention entry? $5 is about what a single pack of Magic costs up here, and "one pack a year for voting rights" seems like a pretty sweet deal.

[Ashbey]

This is incredibly distasteful.

But this "incredibly distasteful" behavior is a direct logical consequence of your own claims, beliefs and viewpoints.

If you run a company, then people may buy or sell their votes - it is normal corporate practice (and CC is a Corporation according to your own Bylaws). Your logic is very weak for a college professor.

[JeBuS]

The CC must be a corporation, by law. Every legal entity that is not a person is a corporation in the US. The Red Cross, the church down the street, and even municipalities are incorporated in one form or another.