Posted by 8 Miles on January 28, 2004, at 19:33:56
In reply to free-to-fee question » Dinah, posted by badhaircut on January 28, 2004, at 10:49:41
Oh, I'm sure that there are a few people who would pay an access fee to use these boards, but I also think that the diversity of thought and input would make this a very bland and vanilla place. I find it interseting that I have gotten no feedback to the post I made regarding alternative options for generating revenue. I would also think that a site that one has to PAY to access would be severly resticted in principle on who could be blocked from posting. Of course, most people DO read the rules, accidents happen. So, if I made a *minor* rules violation, and I was blocked from posting, would that not possibly be an infringement upon services paid for? It is a lot to consider, but before I agreed to pay for access to a site (especially to one I mostly offer support and ideas to others as opposed to seeking help) I would clearly want to see the costs that the board host has to pay. Doesn't the University of Chicago ultimately support this board? Does any money actually come from Dr. Bob's wallet? Obviously, Dr. Bob spends a lot of time on these boards, but is in ADDITION to the time he usually works at the University? Also, I know, as Dr. Bob states, that research from those who post on these boards is used for speaking engagements as well as published material from Dr. Bob. Where do the profits and honoraria from THESE usage of OUR words go? I have suggested that a portion of them be returned to help support the financial costs of maintaining these boards, yet I got no response to my suggestions. Again, as I pointed out in an earlier post, there are REALLY people who cannot afford even an exrta $10 per month to post here. Should THEY be denied possibly LIFE-SAVING help from others? I say "others" because Dr. Bob has stated that he is NOT here to offer professional opinions regarding our postings. So who DOES provide the info? OTHER POSTERS! Ultimately, I contend, that the only true involvement needed from a moderator is SOME feedback to general questions, controlling postings by re-directing them to the most appropriate forum, and SOME direct involvement when established rules are not followed ( I have also posted several alternatives to THAT involvement by Dr. Bob). There are those who also have commented that a fee-for-service system would really only serve as a "weeding out" process to keep out the rift-raft. I see no evidence to support those claims, but I understand how such thoughts could have evolved to that "perception". There are clearly rather divergent opinions regarding a fee-for-service access. Bottom line: is it REALLY that cost effective( when compared to quality of information )to charge for access when it means the elimination of potentially up to 25-33% of posters currently on board? How many lives would be lost or indelibly disaffected because this resource was not available to them freely during their most dire hour? Who wants to answer THAT question honestly? If ONE person dies or falls apart because that person was unable to ask for help because no fee was paid, is that not too high a price to pay? I wonder what SAR would have to say about that one.
any real responses?
8
poster:8 Miles
thread:306403
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/306633.html