lottery

[Generaldisaster]

How about a voluntary fund (those who wish kick in a couple bucks) and then draw names out of the hat or use won/lost records to decide which non paying members get free memberships. I've played at least a dozen or so players who I want to play again. Some of these people live in very depressed economic situations. And yes $20.00 us is a lot to them.

[Sammy gags]

I like the idea

[poo-maker]

You should have a poll on who would actually donate the money.

[Generaldisaster]

I pledge $10.00 us

[max is gr8]

Great Idea. That really is all that should be said

[Huckleberryhound]

Somebody buy me a free Hamburger, i'm hungry

[GrazingCattle]

I like the idea. i am too poor to support it, but it is honorable. If I had money I would donate! I think there would be strong support for it.

[alster]

There's no such thing as a free lunch...

[cleveridea]

And this requires group effort, how? Like Nike says, just do it.

[BulaMatari]

Its a good idea I think.

But how do you know if someone on the list realy can't buy a premium ?

[cleveridea]

Its a good idea I think.

But how do you know if someone on the list realy can't buy a premium ?

Because they give you their tear-filled puppy dog eyes until they hear the sound of your wallet cracking open.

Personally, I do not understand why anyone would give money to people to play a game that they can play for free.

[dominationnation]

i think that you have one small problem. Lack isnt going to give away free membership just cause a poll said that people want him to. obviosly non premiums will want it what do they have to lose?

[GrazingCattle]

The reason for the gifting for premium is for good players, that can't afford it, to expand their ability to get involved in the site. When I wasn't premium, I would never have considered joining RT that i didn't know most of the people in. I couldn't try too many maps out fully, and I was not going to get involved in a tourney.

How do we know if the person is incapable of paying? A good player, that posts often, and is seen even though he/she doesn't have premium is either too poor to pay for premium or too young to pay for it out right. Most people (true not all) that you see for long periods of time on the site, and have been a member for sometime are premium. If not, then they may not be fiscally possible to. That would be my logic for the gifting of memberships from the fund.

that is my opinion on the matter

[Generaldisaster]

i think that you have one small problem. Lack isnt going to give away free membership just cause a poll said that people want him to. obviosly non premiums will want it what do they have to lose?

The money would end up going to Lack.The way to do it might be for it to be open to non premium members who have completed 50 games and are at the rank of sargent or better and we could use the dice to decide

[Evil Semp]

How about a voluntary fund (those who wish kick in a couple bucks) and then draw names out of the hat or use won/lost records to decide which non paying members get free memberships. I've played at least a dozen or so players who I want to play again. Some of these people live in very depressed economic situations. And yes $20.00 us is a lot to them.

If their economic situation is really that bad should they be paying for internet access? I know some people play from school or the library but I think many of the members that don't have premium are probably high school age and mom and dad won't pay for it.

[gordon1975]

theres aready a lottery.its called the Refer-A-Friend contest

[Glacius]

hmmm

[dominationnation]

i think that you have one small problem. Lack isnt going to give away free membership just cause a poll said that people want him to. obviosly non premiums will want it what do they have to lose?

The money would end up going to Lack.The way to do it might be for it to be open to non premium members who have completed 50 games and are at the rank of sargent or better and we could use the dice to decide

I dont see how lack makes any money on this deal

[JoshJ]

I think the implication was that people donated extra, but I don't even think that's really necessary.

I'd suggest to make a contest of playskill rather than just the referencing- perhaps the best-ranked nonpremium member at the end of each month gets 1 year of premium, meaning there'd be a total of 24 nonpaying members at one time with premium access- those who win the two contests.

Obviously nobody should be able to "win" more than once so it's clearly a one-time deal and lack would make money from those who get addicted enough to sign up again.

[Generaldisaster]

The premise is that We in the CC community would donate (only those who wish of course ) a couple of bucks to pay for memberships of those who can ill afford the $ 20.00 . If they are not premium members then Lack receives no money from them. This way Lack profits and our community Improves

[cleveridea]

The premise is that We in the CC community would donate (only those who wish of course ) a couple of bucks to pay for memberships of those who can ill afford the $ 20.00...

Several people have already outlined methods where either lack gives away the premie membership or it gets paid for by some sort of "fund." Both methods reek of voting to spend other people's money.

General - What is stopping you from, right now, buying a membership for whomever you deem worthy? It's the perfect solution. You are in complete control of the criteria that determines need. You are in complete control of how much you spend. Towards the goal of this "lottery": instead of saying "I pledge $10" - say "I spent $20" - the difference between the two statements is not $10; it is in fact $20.

Will someone explain why this needs to be a group effort? Assuming you agree with the ends of such a scheme, how are those ends furthered by making it a group effort?

If someone out there is not a premium member and they have a compelling story they want to tell about how receiving such a gift makes sense, please tell. Convince me that there is even one such story. So far, this thread only has "I feel sorry for the other fella, and I'm so so guilty for all my fabulous premium membership wealth that I'm willing to spend someone else's money to make myself feel better". IMHO that is all we have going on here. I will personally stake that if a compelling story can be brought to light, I pledge paying a full membership in exchange for that story.

As nice as a premium membership is, no denying that, I just don't see how someone can afford the time and additional means it takes to play games for hours on end on the Internet cannot swing the $1.67/month if playing 20 simultaneous games is an important "need".

I would pleasantly accept having my mind changed with a tangible example.

[tahitiwahini]

Both methods reek of voting to spend other people's money.

General - What is stopping you from, right now, buying a membership for whomever you deem worthy? It's the perfect solution. You are in complete control of the criteria that determines need. You are in complete control of how much you spend. Towards the goal of this "lottery": instead of saying "I pledge $10" - say "I spent $20" - the difference between the two statements is not $10; it is in fact $20.

Will someone explain why this needs to be a group effort? Assuming you agree with the ends of such a scheme, how are those ends furthered by making it a group effort?

If someone out there is not a premium member and they have a compelling story they want to tell about how receiving such a gift makes sense, please tell. Convince me that there is even one such story. So far, this thread only has "I feel sorry for the other fella, and I'm so so guilty for all my fabulous premium membership wealth that I'm willing to spend someone else's money to make myself feel better". IMHO that is all we have going on here. I will personally stake that if a compelling story can be brought to light, I pledge paying a full membership in exchange for that story.

Very eloquently spoken. It often seems we have a higher regard for what we can get other people to do than for what we can do ourselves.

Although I imagine it would have very little appeal to you, if you ever decide to run for public office, I would work for your campaign if possible or at least donate money.

Thanks.

[ape88]

Why not just have a tournament which you have to pay to get in, the winner gets a premium
that way it goes to a skilled person.

[ZawBanjito]

If their economic situation is really that bad should they be paying for internet access? I know some people play from school or the library but I think many of the members that don't have premium are probably high school age and mom and dad won't pay for it.

I think he was talking about people from countries where internet access might be affordable but $20 US isn't. While I recognize that this may be the case, how many players are we talking about? I haven't noticed a great many people from, say, India on the site. Is this some kind of idea where we'll need to go actively LOOKING for the disadvantaged? Because, as Semp is pointing out in a way, they're not exactly vocal at the moment.

I'll only support this idea if it goes to help Iraqis who are playing CC obsessively because they can't go outside. We're with you, people of Iraq!

[max is gr8]

*strokes chin*

I don't think the best player should get it. That would mean that people who play obsessively but aren't very good don't get the rewards for their effort