Board Game Arena

Everyone is right to some degree.

There are plenty of people who have horrible spending habits but then cry that they have no money. Many people also seem to have poor financial education even though it's never been easier to learn.

There are also plenty of people underemployed or with unstable jobs who aren't making a living wage. It would be nice if everyone made a living wage, but the vultures at the top see to it that this is not the case.

Just a guess, but probably true: Some people may be accessing the site only from a low cost phone (tough to survive today without one) and not have an expensive up-to-date computer.

Before someone nitpicks, of course there are exceptions, medical issues (costs/affects income), war, disasters, and so forth which can complicate things further. It is great that having a free option allows more people to enjoy and be exposed to games and destress.

FrankJones wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 05:30 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.

If someone doesn't grasp the simple logic of this, you will never get through to them.

FrankJones wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 05:30 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.

So you're seeing people drinking a beer, smoking a cigarette, or wearing designer clothing while using BGA?

BTW, you can add "subscribing to a website" to your list of unnecessary expenditures as well.

Just a guess, but probably true: Some people may be accessing the site only from a low cost phone (tough to survive today without one) and not have an expensive up-to-date computer.

People can also get a library card for free and use the computers there.

Cile wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 15:58

So you're seeing people drinking a beer, smoking a cigarette, or wearing designer clothing while using BGA?

No. I have seen people do those things while claiming they "cannot afford" other things that cost less.

Cile wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 15:58 BTW, you can add "subscribing to a website" to your list of unnecessary expenditures as well.

Agreed 100%. A website subscription is s luxury, not a necessity. That's why it is great that BGA offers use of the website for free, while also offering a very inexpensive subscription service for those who can afford it and/or wish to support the website.

Cile wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 04:46

FrankJones wrote: ↑15 June 2026, 15:34 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 seems to me that the person saying they can't afford it is the one who is being defensive about their spending habits, like maybe they think the other person is judging them. But that's not the case most of the time, people are just pointing out that it's strange to say "can't afford it" when what the person really means is "I prefer to use my money on other things".

tbhp wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 16:23

Cile wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 04:46

FrankJones wrote: ↑15 June 2026, 15:34 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 seems to me that the person saying they can't afford it is the one who is being defensive about their spending habits, like maybe they think the other person is judging them. But that's not the case most of the time, people are just pointing out that it's strange to say "can't afford it" when what the person really means is "I prefer to use my money on other things".

If a person is feeling defensive by saying "I can't afford it" then it sounds very aggressive to respond to that with "yes you can."

Cile wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 18:47

tbhp wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 16:23

Cile wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 04:46

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 seems to me that the person saying they can't afford it is the one who is being defensive about their spending habits, like maybe they think the other person is judging them. But that's not the case most of the time, people are just pointing out that it's strange to say "can't afford it" when what the person really means is "I prefer to use my money on other things".

If a person is feeling defensive by saying "I can't afford it" then it sounds very aggressive to respond to that with "yes you can."

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).

Cile wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 18:47 If a person is feeling defensive by saying "I can't afford it" then it sounds very aggressive to respond to that with "yes you can."

Something can be both true and "aggressive" (in the mind of the person hearing it) at the same time. Just because the person doesn't want to hear it doesn't mean it's not true. And even if you don't *say* it to them, that doesn't make it any less true.

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.

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.

I tend to agree that affordability of luxuries is often a case of choosing to spend in different ways rather than true problems with affording things. That said, I'm pretty careful about saying that to anyone else, even when I do have some idea what their financial situation is. But I have tried to change from saying "I can't afford it" in those cases and recognising that I am choosing to spend my disposable income elsewhere.

BGA is something I choose to spend my money on. And while I am glad there is a free service available so everyone who wants to gets the opportunity to play, I sometimes wonder how the site would be if more people chose to support. I know a lot of people have withdrawn memberships due to various issues (and I don't judge them for that either, even if I still think the value proposition is well worth it), some of which is reliability of the site. And I'm not entirely sure that's the best way to do things. But I also realise that whether you pay or not is one of the few concrete options people have to express dissatisfaction with how the website is being managed.

Cile wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 18:47

tbhp wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 16:23

Cile wrote: ↑16 June 2026, 04:46

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 seems to me that the person saying they can't afford it is the one who is being defensive about their spending habits, like maybe they think the other person is judging them. But that's not the case most of the time, people are just pointing out that it's strange to say "can't afford it" when what the person really means is "I prefer to use my money on other things".

If a person is feeling defensive by saying "I can't afford it" then it sounds very aggressive to respond to that with "yes you can."

My answer has already been stated by three other people, but I'll add mine, even though I myself have pretty much also said the same thing.

If a person said to me, "I believe $3.50 a month for BGA is worth it, but I literally cannot afford it", I would ask the person if that's genuinely true, or rather, just a preference for spending that $3.50 elsewhere. The vast majority of (possibly all) people I've met do have $3.50 a month of disposable income, or, maybe they don't (meaning, they are in debt and their debt increases each month) but I still see them spending $3.50 a month (usually a lot more) on non-necessities.

That has been my life experience.

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.

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 still feel as though we have lost the thread somewhat. BGA offers plenty for those who truly cannot afford Premium and also for those who choose not to afford premium, so what exactly is the issue?

An anecdote - I was in business for myself at one point in life. I charged an hourly rate that reflected my skills and experience. On one occasion, the client's son or daughter, whom I was tutoring, said her parents wanted to know if I could tutor for X-5 dollars an hour instead of my standing rate of X dollars per hour.

One or both of two things are being implied here:
1) "We do not believe your services are worth x" and/or
2) "We cannot afford x"

My response was "no," because number 1 is incorrect, and number 2 was obviously not true. Their house appeared to be worth half a million, and the high-school student I was tutoring showed up in a Lexus.

On another occasion I tutored pro-bono at a local community center for impoverished and disadvantaged kids. I was comfortable charging $0.00 an hour because there was reason enough to believe they could not afford private tutoring.