EllieK wrote:I'll not be careful with any words, "membership" or otherwise.Liallan wrote: You might be careful with the word "membership." We're all members. Not the same as paying members. And I believe they said overall membership went up. You suggest driving traffic and that's what happened, but it didn't get more paying members. And it's been said they don't want to lose membership. And finding a way to solve this is exactly what they are trying to do - I think we have that part figured out.
They are already trying to work on the site - this doesn't happen like magic. How about an actual suggestion if you have one?
That's certainly your choice, but it can make it more difficult to interpret what you're saying if the "membership" is now only paying members, and apparently no one else counts. And you know what? I was not trying to be confrontational when I said that - I was seriously meaning it would be useful, and kind of as a reminder that everyone is a member. If you want to purposely be stubborn about it just so you can be a snot to me, be my guest - whatever.
I was being serious. One thing you said was the opposite of what they actually said, and I corrected it. And personally, I thought your post was unproductive because it was based on a false premise to start with, and mostly just said "let's be great, make a great game, and what we need is more traffic." It sounded more like a political pep rally than a suggestion.EllieK wrote:Your quips and condescension are entirely unproductive and I have no idea why you feel you need to engage in a confrontational response to my post. And I did provide a suggestion, perhaps you missed it, "Invent an ELO side game that people will pay for." I compliment the guys all the time on the work they do. I compliment them and I pay. They may appreciate it but I'm sure they don't need you to defend them.
And keep in mind, you were starting with the false premise that making ELO visible decreased membership (which was incorrect), and then said "ooops" and told them to learn from it. You told them they have to build a good site and traffic is key. I'm being dead serious when I say, I think they already know that. But I'm the one being condescending??? That's exactly what you were. And I wasn't attempting to "defend" them - I thought you were being condescending to them. But it certainly isn't hurting them if someone defends them, whether they "need it" or not, and I can't imagine why it should bother you. Oh gosh, can't be having any defending going on around here. That you compliment them all the time and pay them isn't really relevant to that, unless of course you mean they don't need defending by non-paying members?
) - but it is the quality of staring at that particular screen that is especially annoying. I speak for myself of course, but doubt that I am alone in this. Again, I think 10 seconds are enough to get the point across - or perhaps a screen with the latest BGA news to make it more positive?
) I'm sure a lot of places have this issue: if you run it, you get to make the rules, but then you also live with the consequences - you have to decide what's more important to you, which may not be an easy decision.
