Keep AI Away From BGA

[Suoivax]

AI and ads are against the freedom of internet.
Corporate capitalism is against humanity.

edit: I think EU should monetary support/subsidy this kind of sites/communities not corporations.

The government should pay for leisure websites? That's an interesting viewpoint - one that I do not agree with - but I would be interested in further discussion (given that you haven't really explained why you feel this way).

local governments fund community events/organizations all the time. I have a government funded Recreation center just down the road, they even have a couple waterslides.

[FrankJones]

Local governments using funds to build local parks and rec centers makes sense to me.

I'm not sure I understand why the EU government should fund an online board game website available to everyone in the world.
When the government pays for something, all taxpayers whose taxes fund that government pay for that thing whether they want it or not. If a private company produces a gaming website such as BGA, each individual can decide whether to voluntarily exchange their money for their leisure time on that website. Why does the government need to be involved in BGA?

The previously mentioned statement that ads on BGA are some sort of attack on the freedom of the internet - that really doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

[Gooorn]

The government should pay for leisure websites?

Why not? Especially if it is not just a leisure website, but also a family-friendly learning and community-building space.

[nervous-chicken387]

Not everyone can afford even 12 cents a day.

Then perhaps they should re-examine their priorities of BGA versus life functions?

If anyone cannot afford 12 cents a day (which I call BulSh_t on ), then WTF are they doing spending time on BGA anyway?

And if they chose to spend time on BGA instead of finding a way to afford 12 cents a day, well, yeah, see my above sentence.

I mean, a can of monster energy drink or a burger at McDonalds is a month's worth of BGA premium.

If people can afford that, then they are choosing that rather than supporting BGA with a premium membership.

And if they genuinely are not spending ANY extra money on unnecessary goods or services, then, again, see my first statement. BGA is a luxury, not a necessity.

And if anyone truly cannot afford 12 cents a day, then why are they spending time on BGA instead of finding a way to make their life decisions not dependent on 12 cents a day decisions>?

The problem is, people want that soda or McDonalds's burger or pack of cigarettes, or beer, and still want to whine abbot how unfair they perceive BGA to be.

What a load of F_cking bulls__t.

Open offers: Anyone who claims to not be able to afford a premium membership, send me your contact info and all your financial info. Show me that you're not wasting $4 a month on non-necessities. Do that, and I will pay for TWO years of premium membership.

I'll wait patiently while nobody actually takes me up on that offer.

Your arguement is trash and you're coming across snobbish. You are generalising a wide group of non premium players. I know people on here that literally can't afford premium right now but use the site as a small break from a real tough time right now.

Yes I'm sure there are plenty of people that complain who can afford premium, and some of their complaints are meh, but some are genuine issues that should be addressed . Generalising them all as ungrateful freeloaders isn't a good look.

You beat me to it. That is exactly how I use BGA. As an attempt to get a small break from my otherwise busy life.

Your arguement is trash and you're coming across snobbish. You are generalising a wide group of non premium players. I know people on here that literally can't afford premium right now but use the site as a small break from a real tough time right now.

Yes I'm sure there are plenty of people that complain who can afford premium, and some of their complaints are meh, but some are genuine issues that should be addressed . Generalising them all as ungrateful freeloaders isn't a good look.

I do not believe my argument is trash, but I should have phrased it better.

I apologize for my tone and I rescind my posted statement. I will amend my post.

Your argument is trash.

You presume that life as you experience it, including your available disposable income, is also available for everyone else. That is not how you should view life. You should understand that, especially on a site with people from many different countries and/or backgrounds as BGA has, that people have different life experiences.

Because you start with a false assumption that everyone has disposable income, you presume that everyone who is not a premium member must be wasting it elsewhere. When that disposable income may not exist in the first place.

Once you realise that your main assumption underpinning your argument is flawed, it falls apart.

[FrankJones]

I already apologized, rescinded my post, deleted it, and acknowledged I should have chosen better phrasing.

Now you're just piling on for no reason.

Can everyone afford $3.50 a month for premium? Probably not. "everyone" is a difficult bar to clear, because even one person out of 1000 would defeat the assertion. But, could most people? Most likely yes. Very few people are so perfect with their finances that they do not spend $3.50 a month on something unnecessary. Most people I have met who say they "cannot afford" something in fact can afford it but what they really mean is, "I prefer to spend my disposable income on other things."

Regardless, BGA offers a wide variety of games and features even with the free membership, so I am not exactly sure what all the fuss is about. For that very small percentage of people who truly cannot afford a premium membership, it's not as though BGA is unavailable or inaccessible.

I wish there were an actual way to verify whether people are being honest about truly not being able to afford premium; if there were, I would be happy to give out some gift memberships.

For someone to truly not be able to afford BGA premium, it would mean the person spends zero dollars a month on any of the following:

Meals out
tobacco, vaping products, alcohol, recreational substances
Movies out
Soda, junk food
Sporting events
Cable TV or streaming subscriptions
Jewelry
Any clothing that costs more than the bare minimum
And probably several more things I'm forgetting off the top of my head.

How many people honestly meet that criteria?

[Suoivax]

I already apologized, rescinded my post, deleted it, and acknowledged I should have chosen better phrasing.

Now you're just piling on for no reason.

Can everyone afford $3.50 a month for premium? Probably not. "everyone" is a difficult bar to clear, because even one person out of 1000 would defeat the assertion. But, could most people? Most likely yes. Very few people are so perfect with their finances that they do not spend $3.50 a month on something unnecessary. Most people I have met who say they "cannot afford" something in fact can afford it but what they really mean is, "I prefer to spend my disposable income on other things."

Regardless, BGA offers a wide variety of games and features even with the free membership, so I am not exactly sure what all the fuss is about. For that very small percentage of people who truly cannot afford a premium membership, it's not as though BGA is unavailable or inaccessible.

I wish there were an actual way to verify whether people are being honest about truly not being able to afford premium; if there were, I would be happy to give out some gift memberships.

For someone to truly not be able to afford BGA premium, it would mean the person spends zero dollars a month on any of the following:

Meals out
tobacco, vaping products, alcohol, recreational substances
Movies out
Soda, junk food
Sporting events
Cable TV or streaming subscriptions
Jewelry
Any clothing that costs more than the bare minimum
And probably several more things I'm forgetting off the top of my head.

How many people honestly meet that criteria?

Better phrasing wouldn't change the fact that it's a trash argument.

But go ahead, double down.

[FrankJones]

Better phrasing wouldn't change the fact that it's a trash argument.

But go ahead, double down.

You're entitled to your opinion. Calling my argument "trash" seems rather rude. But I suppose neither you nor the other person ripping into me have ever met anyone who says "I cannot afford x" when in fact that person just spends money unwisely or simply values other leisure items instead.

I have met countless such people, so, I take it with a grain of salt when people say it. That does not mean it is false when any one person says it - but if 100 people say it, I would surmise it is highly likely that more than 50% of them aren't being entirely truthful or accurate.

[tbhp]

Better phrasing wouldn't change the fact that it's a trash argument.

But go ahead, double down.

You're entitled to your opinion. Calling my argument "trash" seems rather rude. But I suppose neither you nor the other person ripping into me have ever met anyone who says "I cannot afford x" when in fact that person just spends money unwisely or simply values other leisure items instead.

I have met countless such people, so, I take it with a grain of salt when people say it. That does not mean it is false when any one person says it - but if 100 people say it, I would surmise it is highly likely that more than 50% of them aren't being entirely truthful or accurate.

You shouldn't have to apologize, they are just being obtuse. Bar some very specific circumstances (like if someone lives in a shelter that has an internet access), everyone who can afford to play board games on the internet can also afford to pay the subscription price. The choice not to is very much a priority thing, not a physical impossibility thing.

People just throw the "can't afford it" phrase around and deny it when being confronted because they don't want to admit that they spend money on things that they don't absolutely need all the time, or they don't like that you are pointing out that they are choosing not to give support when they actually could. People can get quite irrational with those sorts of things.

[Cile]

But I suppose neither you nor the other person ripping into me have ever met anyone who says "I cannot afford x" when in fact that person just spends money unwisely or simply values other leisure items instead.

It's probable that I have met such people, but I don't know. When someone tells me they "cannot afford x" I see no reason not to take them at the word and instead audit their spending habits, making assumptions and judgements about their character in the process.

[FrankJones]

But I suppose neither you nor the other person ripping into me have ever met anyone who says "I cannot afford x" when in fact that person just spends money unwisely or simply values other leisure items instead.

It's probable that I have met such people, but I don't know. When someone tells me they "cannot afford x" I see no reason not to take them at the word and instead audit their spending habits, making assumptions and judgements about their character in the process.

It's not a matter of taking people at their word or not.

It's a matter of evaluating the situation when the person says "I cannot afford X" while drinking a beer, smoking a cigarette, or wearing designer clothing.

And who said anything about judging people's character? I merely asserted that when people say, "I cannot afford x" it's most likely just a different way of saying, "I prefer to spend my money on Y rather than x".