Well, that's good.veme wrote: Re: Liallan
There are few things I appreciate more than candor.
I wish more people would be more honest - it just makes things easier, and besides, then I wouldn't seem so dang out of place. 
I know you were speaking about how you would feel. But it's a bit like saying I would feel bad if I made a bunch of noise outside at 2 am, but when someone else does it and doesn't feel bad, stress that I would feel bad. I'm sort of saying they ought to feel bad as well. Or, most people who would feel like a thief for copying software to use probably consider anyone else that does it is a thief too. So I'm having a hard time believing you don't feel this way about it when it's someone else besides yourself. I mean, maybe you don't, but then why mention it?I never said that I thought people were thieves for using a free service, I said how I would feel if I were using this site in that one particular way. This gives me little sympathy for the argument "Since I don't feel like setting up my game, it should be available to everyone in the world for free." Why should we allow for the possibility of mooching, just to provide a minor convenience for those who aren't?
And I agree with you that everything should not be made available and free to everyone "just" because they're too lazy to set up a game. It's not hurting that's it's available for free, but I don't think they have an excuse to be upset if it weren't available. But don't you think the site is already allowing for mooching? What if I don't want to buy some game (and I can afford it), and I'm too lazy to drive to my friend's house 3 miles away, so I play online here instead. Aren't I "mooching" and taking advantage? I think in a sense we're all taking advantage, and I don't mean cheating the site, but rather just making use of, and taking advantage of the opportunity, the availability of the site. Somewhere is a fine line between what most of us are doing and what is stepping over the line. That line is going to be in a different place for everyone, and I don't know even where I believe it is.
But I do kind of believe when a site has made something available for free for a long time, and then suddenly something changes so drastically, it's going to be like hitting a brick wall for some people, and they'll be upset. For anyone who has been playing on the same IP with someone else for a long time, this is pretty drastic for them. And that includes those who play with strangers all over the world in addition to playing with family or friends - they count in this as well. In a way, it would be like taking 30% of the games I play and suddenly making them premium - I would find that pretty drastic. (And see my above post about why I'm not excited about this even though it doesn't affect me.)
I get your point, but (a) that assumes there's a high percentage of people "leeching," and (b) makes too much sense. I'm sure there are quite a few people around here who don't give one thought to motivating the site to keep going. It would be nice to believe everyone cared that much. And (c) I think the publishers know a certain amount of people are "leeching" and have probably considered that and found it a necessary evil, or an "acceptable loss" so to speak. When a site like this exists, it's certainly understood that people are "using" the site in a sense.I think the board game community should be interested in making sure that people who work/pay to provide these games and services are compensated in some way such that they are motivated to keep doing it, and this change, to me, closes off a possible way for people to leech off their contributions while providing nothing in return.
Most people don't like things that affect them negatively. That is human nature. He also didn't say he hated it - he was just pointing out that he didn't have to like it, and he doesn't. I think you're taking the comment too seriously, or you're even more extremely literal than I am. Even when someone can see the overall good results something might have, they can still not like it for its negative impact on them personally. I find nothing selfish about that at all. I call it not being a robot. And my comments apply to this too:My comment was specifically in response to theirs: "I still don't have to like a change that impacts me negatively." This is the definition of a selfish reason to be against something. It is not based on a careful consideration of pros and cons, or a logical analysis of how the change impacts the community, it is purely self-serving.You claimed to understand that point (when Isdariel pointed it out), and yet said to him, "And I can still think your opinion about it is selfish and short-sighted." He didn't say anything at all that even remotely suggested he fit the above description, but it certainly sounds like you think he does, though I don't know for what reason.
It is very often that we don't like a particular thing someone did or a particular opinion, but can still like the person - I'm totally aware of that. (In fact, I think that's a requirement of life since no two people would ever 100% agree on everything.)I also never said Isdariel was selfish or short-sighted, just that I thought their opinion about this is.
(Is it just me, or this is getting a bit longish... )
), but it makes me ponder (what I think is) the underlying assumption: "Players who play with local friends are generating less revenue for [BGA and/or Game Developers] than players who play with strangers." From that assumption it follows that low-revenue generating players should be behind a paywall and high-revenue generating players should be able to play for free. Do you agree with both assumption and conclusion or have I missed a point?
