look I get accused enough of being bias, I don't need a minge who also, despite being 9, is also a lawyer and accuses me of banning him for cash monies.
Also, on the flipside if they nick their mum's card to pay us off and we get accused of cyber-bullying 9 year olds.
(Feb 27, 2019, 03:23 AM)David Phillips Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb 27, 2019, 03:08 AM)miss joley Wrote: [ -> ]Paid unbans don't look good in terms of public opinions and makes the server look money hungry, sometimes the server has low month donation periods but usually get better
That's certainly an opinion. I don't necessarily think it has a negative effect on how anyone might view the community. If anything, I think it has the opposite effect and would be quite an improvement to how both current and new players view the community.
Strict on rules while offering a solution to those player(s) that wish to get back into the server and enjoy the experience. They're not obligated to pay to 'expedite' their access back into the services. Is Amazon Prime or any form of Expedited Shipping something you consider to be a money-hungry move by corporations?
The fact is that, as in those examples, you're paying to access something faster. In this case, you'd be paying to access the services without waiting for the time to expire // the cost serves both as a safety net that you won't go and break the rules immediately while also providing an equal consequence that, to some, is far more costly than just waiting out a ban expiration.
I think it is quite hypocritical to say this is greedy, but requiring someone to have a £5 membership to wear a virtual suit and pay £20 to wear a government outfit is somehow more logical (?)
Most corporations are inherently "money hungry" especially because most have constant pressure, and an obligation to their stock holders.
I would certainly hope there was a feeling of obligation to ensure that this community doesn’t go belly side up and that it eventually does something more than limit itself to hosting a CityRP server that struggle still to get 40/50 players on.
(Feb 28, 2019, 01:34 PM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ] (Feb 28, 2019, 01:10 PM)Barkles Wrote: [ -> ]look I get accused enough of being bias, I don't need a minge who also, despite being 9, is also a lawyer and accuses me of banning him for cash monies.
Why would this matter? He has no legal right to use limelight.
Also, on the flipside if they nick their mum's card to pay us off and we get accused of cyber-bullying 9 year olds.
How would this be cyberbullying to any extent? If little johnny takes his mom's card, he will get in trouble with her, too. He will learn his lesson much better than a 24hr ban.
First statement was a joke, nuff said
I didn't say we'd be bullying kids I said we'd be "accused" of bullying kids, which over all is bad press.
Overall better ways for LL to get money than if you're spoilt daddy will let you play your games again but if you can't afford it tough shit.
Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Limelight get more money in 2018 (£200 more) than in 2017? I don't think money is a major concern at the moment and either so there are others ways of gaining money.
(Feb 28, 2019, 10:51 PM)AEddie Wrote: [ -> ]Please correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Limelight get more money in 2018 (£200 more) than in 2017? I don't think money is a major concern at the moment and either so there are others ways of gaining money.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it correct to make the assumption that most businesses are made to make a profit?
There’s a lot of time and energy going into the management of this community and to only strive for cash flows that are sustainable short-term, despite clear areas for monetization, is foolish and not practical.
Enough of this “unethical” BS. If you’re against this form of monetization you should also be against these supposed children spending real money to buy in-game money through the services and items deceitfully categorized as donations and by further incentivizing this behavior by allowing them to buy donator for other players. These “donations” run the server. Without perks, no donations. Without donations, no server. This isn’t Wikipedia. Nobody is donating just to donate. No argument made has presented anything other than it “looking bad” but to whom? The 29 year old playing GmodRP who got his feelings hurt because someone broke FearRP? Let’s be real. This affects nobody. Staff maintain control of whether its allowable or not, so it’s not making some constant loop of rule breakage.
What looks worse is people that take this community as semi-serious until some rules are broken and then denying UBR’s on the notion that even after months/years John Doe hasn’t learnt his lesson or doesn’t feel apologetic enough. Extending the virtual timeouts in-game through probationary periods that regardless of the rule broken can send you back to the virtual prison permanently. You want to have that silly system? Great. This
mitigates some of the stupidity of that by at least potentially giving the players an ability to, if they wished, expedite their ban (if the staff member issuing the punishment allows it) and re-access the service(s) // the alternative argument is that they go play Fortnite for 24h and come back and THEN serve out their blacklist(s)? There’s zero change in the punishment. Sorry if you don’t have money, you’ll need to wait out your virtual timeout and maybe get a job or read an e-book if you claim it’s unfair to create a system that might favor those with money. That’s literally how every game works and the world itself.
(Mar 1, 2019, 12:21 AM)David Phillips Wrote: [ -> ]Enough of this “unethical” BS. If you’re against this form of monetization you should also be against these supposed children spending real money to buy in-game money through the services and items deceitfully categorized as donations and by further incentivizing this behavior by allowing them to buy donator for other players. These “donations” run the server. Without perks, no donations. Without donations, no server. This isn’t Wikipedia. Nobody is donating just to donate.
Where is membership said to be a donation?
(Mar 1, 2019, 03:04 PM)Hungames Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 1, 2019, 10:19 AM)Doctor Internet Wrote: [ -> ] (Mar 1, 2019, 12:21 AM)David Phillips Wrote: [ -> ]Enough of this “unethical” BS. If you’re against this form of monetization you should also be against these supposed children spending real money to buy in-game money through the services and items deceitfully categorized as donations and by further incentivizing this behavior by allowing them to buy donator for other players. These “donations” run the server. Without perks, no donations. Without donations, no server. This isn’t Wikipedia. Nobody is donating just to donate.
Where is membership said to be a donation?
-snip-
![[Image: 207dd612313519bf3d24ec0abf6ac1a5.png]](https://i.gyazo.com/207dd612313519bf3d24ec0abf6ac1a5.png)
Fixed, thanks for the bug report.
hey can I buy dev too???
OT: Apart from all the ethical issues, there's also the problem of some people claiming staff are more "ban-happy" as it may bring in more revenue. It's not exactly a good image to have.
"Bad image"???
Mate, The Guardian isn't going to pick up a story of some random gmod server which gives you the option to pay to bypass a ban, and then spin it to say we're funding Nazis. This is a good idea and will make hella money.
(Mar 1, 2019, 10:25 PM)Lord Octagon Wrote: [ -> ]"Bad image"???
Mate, The Guardian isn't going to pick up a story of some random gmod server which gives you the option to pay to bypass a ban, and then spin it to say we're funding Nazis. This is a good idea and will make hella money.
Not papers you have to worry about, it's other communities. People talk to eachother, and we'll become a minge-magnet, because they can pay their way out of bans.
![[Image: kHSTMdE.png]](https://i.imgur.com/kHSTMdE.png)