Keep AI Away From BGA

[Meeplelowda]

I also see people do this with regard to time. "Man, I really wish I had more time to read novels." While we are watching a 3-hour sporting event or playing a 2-hour board game. That's not a lack of time, that's a prioritization of one's time on sporting events and board games rather than reading novels - which is perfectly fine. I feel as though I should spend more time reading novels (being an avid reader who has read a great many books), but I'm not going to falsely claim it is lack of time that causes me not to. I have merely decided, for the time being, to prioritize other things.

I like this because it decouples it from money which is hard to separate from issues of privilege (although availability of leisure time also correlates with money and privilege to a degree, so it's not perfect). The point is that most people have a "resource" (be it time, money, or something else) that they allocate. Some of that allocation is for things strictly necessary like food, shelter, education, healthcare (in some countries), etc. Add as much as you want to that list.

As for everything not on whatever list of necessities you come up with, those things‐‐by your own definition--are not necessities. So if you have *anything* leftover to dedicate to non-necessities, and there is more than one thing you could use your spare resources on (they "cost" less than the amount of that resource you have leftover), then ones you opt to use it on are choices.

[tbhp]

I also see people do this with regard to time. "Man, I really wish I had more time to read novels." While we are watching a 3-hour sporting event or playing a 2-hour board game. That's not a lack of time, that's a prioritization of one's time on sporting events and board games rather than reading novels - which is perfectly fine. I feel as though I should spend more time reading novels (being an avid reader who has read a great many books), but I'm not going to falsely claim it is lack of time that causes me not to. I have merely decided, for the time being, to prioritize other things.

That's a very good point and I agree it is the same sort of thing. People throw those phrases around when they feel like they should be doing something or really wish they could do something, but they haven't found the will power to actually put it in action. It's easier to mindlessly watch a tv program than to read a book. It's easier to buy a couple of pints when you are out with friends than to take out your card and give its debit information to a website.

So when the subject comes up, it's like they are anticipating a criticism that the other person probably didn't even think about, so they find a way to word it that makes it sound like it's a physical impossibility rather than a failing on their part. If they are being judged that's because they are themselves revealing an insecurity about not managing to do what they want to do, not because the other person has an opinion on whether books are better than tv or board game sites are better than pints of beer.

[Cile]

I wouldn't say yes you can I would try to understand why they say they can't afford it. And if they aren't able to explain it then at this point it's obvious they are speaking nonsense. The judgment is not about how they are using their money, it's about how for some strange reason they deny that they prioritize certain things over others, a totally normal thing to do, and instead try to pass it off as they are just too poor to afford it (which is also insensitive to the people who literally might be too poor to buy things).

So it's a purely semantic argument that ignores the point they were trying to make.

Also:

The judgment is not about how they are using their money

So there is judgment in the response.

But you asked Frank if he'd seen someone drinking and smoking while playing BGA. That is called a strawman. The question is if you were out at a pub (if you don't drink, just pretend you do for a second) and your mate, who weekly goes out and has a couple pints, says to you while sipping his second pint of the night "I'd really like a BGA subscription, but I cannot afford it," you don't need to hire a forensic accountant to know that literally cannot be true because you just saw him buy two pints with your own eyes. You have personally witnessed him make the choice between pints and a BGA account. Now if two pints is less than the cost of a BGA subscription, then I'd like to visit your country.

This entire paragraph is a strawman. Unless they are out at a pub with their friend while having this conversation with them on the BGA forums for some reason, they cannot in fact see them ordering a couple pints, or buying expensive shoes, or whatever other luxury. All they can see is someone they do no know saying "I cannot afford it", and with no other information than "other people can afford it" say things like:

These cheapskate losers shouldn't be paying $0.00 and the whining like losers.

Just because one cannot say that 100% of people who say they cannot afford a BGA subscription are merely choosing to do something else with their disposable income does not mean you can't make any statement at all about what many who say that are actually doing.

Can we agree that some % of people legitimately cannot afford it, and some % of people who claim they cannot afford it could if they have other priorities?

If that is the case, when mentioning people who cannot afford it, what is the point of bringing up that other people can? We know people can, that's why there are already people with subscriptions. There existence doesn't mean the people who cannot afford it do not exist or do not matter.

Maybe other people's experiences have been different, but I'm going to move forward in life using my own life experience to evaluate the likelihood of any given statement being true. I'm not sure how wise it is to go through life naively accepting at face value anything anyone says just because it might be "aggressive" to question a statement with a very high probability of being inaccurate.

By that argument I have never actually experienced someone complaining about not being able to afford something while having fancy clothes, or buying drinks, or entertainment, or anything else on your list. So, seeing as in my own life experience that has never happened, I must evaluate your claim as fake. Why should I accept your claim at face value if I have never personally experienced it?

If they are being judged that's because they are themselves revealing an insecurity about not managing to do what they want to do, not because the other person has an opinion on whether books are better than tv or board game sites are better than pints of beer.

Again, you don't think the sentence "These cheapskate losers shouldn't be paying $0.00 and the whining like losers" sounds incredibly judgy?

[FrankJones]

Can we agree that some % of people legitimately cannot afford it, and some % of people who claim they cannot afford it could if they have other priorities?

Yes, I agree to agree.

I will add, I believe the % of people who legitimately cannot afford it is less than 5%, and the people who claim they cannot afford it is greater than 95%.

[FrankJones]

This entire paragraph is a strawman. Unless they are out at a pub with their friend while having this conversation with them on the BGA forums for some reason, they cannot in fact see them ordering a couple pints, or buying expensive shoes, or whatever other luxury. All they can see is someone they do no know saying "I cannot afford it", and with no other information than "other people can afford it" say things like:

No. I call strawman on your attempted call of strawman. For starters: In my experience (As I have clearly stated many times), I have personally observed people claiming to "not be able to afford X" while spending more than X on something else that is unnecessary.

As for random strangers on the internet? I can:

1) take them at their statement that they truly cannot afford 12 cents a day, or
2) assume the opposite, which will be correct the vast majority of the time.

No strawman here.

[FrankJones]

By that argument I have never actually experienced someone complaining about not being able to afford something while having fancy clothes, or buying drinks, or entertainment, or anything else on your list. So, seeing as in my own life experience that has never happened, I must evaluate your claim as fake. Why should I accept your claim at face value if I have never personally experienced it?

Really? Seriously?

You have NEVER experienced this?

You and I most likely not only live in different countries, but on different planets.

You have seriously NEVER, NEVER, EVER, heard or seen someone claim to not be able to afford something while demonstrating in actuality being able to afford it but instead spending that money on something else?

I mean .... okay ?? So, you assert this to be fact. And we should just believe it, even though it strains credibility to the nth degree.

Does this mean I can make any preposterous statement and you will accept it on face value without questioning it? Obviously not, because your approach seems to be:

1) Any argument you dislike is "trash", and
2) Any argument you make it automatically valid and irrefutable.

Dude, come on. You cannot be serious.

[FrankJones]

Again, you don't think the sentence "These cheapskate losers shouldn't be paying $0.00 and the whining like losers" sounds incredibly judgy?

If it sounds judgy, good. It should.

Because, we should give exactly zero iotas of concern or energy to people who pay $0.00 and then have the temerity and audacity to complain they are not getting their $0.00 worth.

So, yeah, I am judgy. I am judgy against whiney people who pay $0.00 and complain about not getting what they feel they are "owed".

Enough of this pandering whiny nonsense. Pay $3.50 a month. Or, decide not to, and accept that the choice is to spend money on other things. In which case, the grounds for complaints are exactly 0.00.

Or, perhaps some people genuinely cannot afford $3.50 a month. In which case, they should be eternally grateful about getting am amazing service like free BGA to give them nearly unlimited leisure and entertainment and enrich their lies.

If anyone has an issue with this, here is exactly how much sympathy I have for them: 0.00 units of sympathy. See, you get what you give. Give 0.00 units of contribution to the site, receive 0.00 units of sympathy.


Just in case we have lost track of the main thread here: WHAT exactly is the issue ??? People paying $0.00 are unhappy? Well, I'll happily send out a payment to those people of exactly how much they have contributed. Anyone who feels he or she is not getting his or her $0.00 worth can expect a full refund of that $0.00 in the mail.

[Meeplelowda]

This entire paragraph is a strawman. Unless they are out at a pub with their friend while having this conversation with them on the BGA forums for some reason, they cannot in fact see them ordering a couple pints, or buying expensive shoes, or whatever other luxury.

No. It's called a hypothetical argument, in which you propose a set of facts which are assumed to be true for the purpose of the exercise, then discuss some consequence of those facts. It is a fairly common rhetorical device. Now it is reasonable to object that the set of facts are flawed in some way. But that is simply an argument that the premise is flawed, not that the consequences do not flow from the premise if it is accepted.

The point of the hypothetical was to counter the proposition that it is never possible to dispute whether someone can truly afford something without an "audit." It was not intended to show that you can tell whether any specific BGA user can afford something.

But based on this

Can we agree that some % of people legitimately cannot afford it, and some % of people who claim they cannot afford it could if they have other priorities?

it seems that you accept the possibility that some people falsely claim that they cannot afford something when it is actually a choice. We are seemingly never going to agree where that percentage lies between 0 and 100, other than it's not at either extreme, which is fine.

[Cile]

In regards to free accounts:

What do you think the impact would be if BGA decided tomorrow that only premium accounts can create and join games?

They'd get an immediate bump in premium subscriptions, and they no longer would be spending resources on the free accounts. Sounds great for BGA, so why don't they do that?
Because the number of active users would plummet. It would suddenly become much harder to find/create a table. Many games would become impossible to find opponents for, and this will get worse over time as more and more people don't renew their subscriptions as it becomes too difficult for them to find opponents for the games they want to play.

The fact of the matter is free accounts provide content (other players) for the premium accounts to interact with. For a Premium Game a subscriber can create a table with any settings they want and will likely fill the table with free accounts that will have to take any table with settings they find good enough. When the free accounts join they are providing an incentive to the Premium users to keep maintaining their subscription.

So who cares if the free users are upset about a change? The Premium users who will be complaining about the lack of opponents if the free users decide it's not worth the hassle.

[FrankJones]

In regards to free accounts:

What do you think the impact would be if BGA decided tomorrow that only premium accounts can create and join games?

They'd get an immediate bump in premium subscriptions, and they no longer would be spending resources on the free accounts. Sounds great for BGA, so why don't they do that?
Because the number of active users would plummet. It would suddenly become much harder to find/create a table. Many games would become impossible to find opponents for, and this will get worse over time as more and more people don't renew their subscriptions as it becomes too difficult for them to find opponents for the games they want to play.

The fact of the matter is free accounts provide content (other players) for the premium accounts to interact with. For a Premium Game a subscriber can create a table with any settings they want and will likely fill the table with free accounts that will have to take any table with settings they find good enough. When the free accounts join they are providing an incentive to the Premium users to keep maintaining their subscription.

I mostly agree with you here, with a clarification. Premium members definitely benefit from a large player base. And from allowing as many players as possible to create and join games.

That does not necessarily mean it is important to have a large number of non-premium accounts. BGA would be at its best for everyone involved if all the non-premium members who genuinely could afford $3.50 a month decided to support the site by doing so. I would guess that many of the existing problems stem from insufficient revenue.

One friend of mine recently decided not to renew premium. He explained his reasoning - it wasn't about cost. He did say he can no longer create game tables. But he and I play our favorite game mostly in Arena, so that effect is relatively minimal. I am not sure whether the limitation on game creation applies to all games or only some games. I know some games are in a different "tier" with regard to accessibility from premium accounts compared to non-premium.

So who cares if the free users are upset about a change? The Premium users who will be complaining about the lack of opponents if the free users decide it's not worth the hassle.

I would say this depends on:
1) What is the change causing people to be upset? Is it advertisements? If so, I don't see this as reasonable. Websites cost money to operate, and if people aren't supporting the site with a membership, the website needs to find that revenue elsewhere. Advertisements are the most obvious method.
2) How are people expressing their displeasure? Sometimes non-premium members phrase their requests in a very demanding way, as though BGA owes them something. This can come across in a negative and off-putting way. Now, maybe this goes both ways. Maybe BGA feels they (BGA) would be better able to meet active member requests if more members supported the website financially, and maybe non-premium members feel they (the members) are hesitant to support BGA financially until they see some desired improvements first. I can see both sides there. One of those two entities needs to "go first", and neither side is guaranteed to get what they want even if the other side goes first.

My personal opinion? Any free user who thinks BGA is a "hassle" has a really weird way of evaluating value versus cost. For $0.00 a month, BGA provides a lot. I understand it is the case that some feel differently - I just don't understand why anyone would feel that way.