Looks like another school shooting.....

[Diogenes]

You crafted a new word "unserious" and it made wonder if it applied to the undead.

I cannot take credit.

unserious at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

 

[Diogenes]

I'm sold. I support your proposition. Now you need to get a proposition number.

I've got one.

Thread 'I propose a paid membership tier system'

Friday at 2:02 PM

Yes, I know people can already voluntarily drench Daddy Damocles with showers of shekels, rivers of rubles, lakes full of lakhs, deluges of dollars, etc.

What I propose is a formal, renewable paid access to an exclusive level of the JPP experience.

Think of it as being like the difference between "free" Spotify and paid Spotify.

Naturally, being magnanimous myself, I trust Daddy Damocles to generously allow the hoi polloi, the great unwashed, the poor, the stupid, etc. to continue clogging their existing sties with puerile slang-fests and grudge matches where sober discussions...

• Diogenes
• Replies: 24
• Forum: Introductions, User Announcements, Suggestions and

 

[Into the Night]

I'm being serious.

So is he.

JPP already has APP, it's very seldom utilized.

I believe that could be because it's perceived as too restrictive and moderation is always subjective.

And, it's free. In my experience, a lot of people tend to value what they pay for. If it's "free", not so much.

What I'm talking about is a "premium level" of access; it could be a sub-forum behind a paywall.

All forum content could remain visible (in read-only mode), but those who refuse to pay for the ability to comment at the subscriber level would not be able to do so.

I tend to think that would limit the shitposting. (Yes, I do it, too).

Naturally, if someone is willing to pay Damocles for the dubious privilege of engaging in endless grudge matches and off-topic nonsense, they could. But would they?

Of course, the general forum TOS (rules) would still apply.

I believe a lot less moderation would be demanded if commenting was limited to paid subscribers, because they'd lose their money and their access to commenting if they violated the TOS. Commenters would have "skin in the game".

I suspect the proportion of JPP's demographic willing to "put their money where their mouth is" might be very small.

I could be wrong. There's one way to find out.

Damocles already has a payment plan in place, it's just voluntary.

With a subscription-based commenting model, he'd just have to assign user permissions selectively. He already does that, just not on based on payment status.

Subscriber-only content is a huge segment of media.

If JPP offered that option, it would be a risk-free way to see if what works quite well all over the Internet would also work here.

Pay to play. You can look, but you can't touch, unless you pony up.

We'll see if he likes the idea enough to consider it, if he sees this. He may not want to.

Censorship doesn't work. Look at all the Democrat whiners that boast about their huge ignore lists, but they are STILL complaining about the conservative opinions expressed here.

 

[Into the Night]

I cannot take credit.

unserious at DuckDuckGo

DuckDuckGo. Privacy, Simplified.

duckduckgo.com

Guess you'll have to. You looked up a word that doesn't exist in the English language, and DuckDuckGo obediently provided you with one.

 

[Diogenes]

So is he.

Censorship doesn't work. Look at all the Democrat whiners that boast about their huge ignore lists, but they are STILL complaining about the conservative opinions expressed here.

There's no censorship involved.

Unlike a "news website", anyone who opts NOT to pay could still view the comments made by the subscribers who DO opt to pay.

They can then scurry back to Current Events or any other other subforum on JPP.com and comment as much as they like.

 

[Diogenes]

Guess you'll have to. You looked up a word that doesn't exist in the English language, and DuckDuckGo obediently provided you with one.

Modesty forbids.

Definition of UNSERIOUS

not serious… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

unserious

1. not considered important or worth respect: 2. not intending to achieve…

dictionary.cambridge.org

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/unserious

unserious, adj. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary

unserious, adj. meanings, etymology, pronunciation and more in the Oxford English Dictionary

www.oed.com

 

[Into the Night]

There's no censorship involved.

That's exactly what you're discussing. Censorship based on the ability to pay.

Unlike a "news website", anyone who opts NOT to pay could still view the comments made by the subscribers who DO opt to pay.

Same type of censorship.

They can then scurry back to Current Events or any other other subforum on JPP.com and comment as much as they like.

Which is why you are here at JPP posting.

 

[Diogenes]

That's exactly what you're discussing. Censorship based on the ability to pay. Same type of censorship. Which is why you are here at JPP posting.

Non sequitur.

Censorship: the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public, because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons.

censorship

1. the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art…

dictionary.cambridge.org

 

[Into the Night]

Non sequitur.

Censorship: the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art, document, or other kind of communication from being seen or made available to the public,

Which is what you are suggesting.

because it is considered to be offensive or harmful, or because it contains information that someone wishes to keep secret, often for political reasons.

Which is what you are suggesting.

censorship

1. the action of preventing part or the whole of a book, film, work of art…

dictionary.cambridge.org

No dictionary defines any word. False authority fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Modesty forbids.

Definition of UNSERIOUS

not serious… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

unserious

1. not considered important or worth respect: 2. not intending to achieve…

dictionary.cambridge.org

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/unserious

unserious, adj. meanings, etymology and more | Oxford English Dictionary

unserious, adj. meanings, etymology, pronunciation and more in the Oxford English Dictionary

www.oed.com

False authority fallacies. No dictionary defines any word. No dictionary owns any word. Words existed long before dictionaries!

 

[Diogenes]

Which is what you are suggesting. Which is what you are suggesting. No dictionary defines any word. False authority fallacy.

Argument by repetition.

Non sequitur.

Denialism.

 

[Diogenes]

False authority fallacies. No dictionary defines any word. No dictionary owns any word. Words existed long before dictionaries!

Strawman.

 

[Into the Night]

Argument by repetition.

Non sequitur.

Denialism.

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

 

[Diogenes]

Random phrases. No apparent coherency.

Same.

 

[Into the Night]

Strawman.

Fallacy fallacy. YOU brought it up!

Same.

LIF. Grow up. Only toddlers and stupid Democrats argue that way!

 

[Diogenes]

Only toddlers and stupid Democrats argue that way!

Think so?

 

[Diogenes]

 

[Into the Night]

Think so?

Don't be condescending.

 

[Into the Night]

Random phrase. No apparent coherency.

 

[Diogenes]

Random phrase. No apparent coherency.

Meme. Posted without comment to troll you. Worked like a charm.