Petition: I'd Like a Subscriber-Only Message Board (2 Viewers)

[trader jake]

If you are so certain that there is nothing worthwhile to talk about in a forum like this, why would you assume that the Shark Pool would get diluted from all the sharks running over to the new forum to discuss nothing?

it's not that i'm certain there would be nothing to discuss, but i am certain that the topics discussed would be more likely to be ones discussed by the quality posters/sharks and staff. if you've been here as long as some have the topics don't change drastically from one year to the next>>that would change if a seperate forum were created, but the same quality posters would probably see their shark pool participation drop drasticallywhere do you think guys like yourself, Woodrow, bostonfred, and about a thousand other quality posters be? bringing quality material to the shark pool? what if a few staff members continue to contribute a great deal to the shark pool>>>then they'll have subscribers #####ing and moaning to no end about, "i pay $25 you should be answering my question 1st...not wasting time with those novices in the shark pool"

slippery slope with very little upside for FBG's management. if i had a god complex like Shick! i certainly would squash this as quick as possible...headache city for them imo

 

[mcjc4]

Well this idea isn't going anywhere is it? I am not tech savy, but doesn't website hits help sell to advertisers? Memeber only forums most likely turns this site into a members only site. Stay with me here, member only site, way less web hits, way less advertising and " way less perceived member numbers".Just a thought.....

 

[Koya]

I can with all honesty say, and I have expressed this elsewhere:If there is not some forum where we can dissect and discuss, in detail, the information that we pay for, the information will no longer warrant paying $25.00.I agree you need a good free forum for general discussion, but the blog idea of commenting on the articles in the pay section seems like a logical way to bridge the divide.Simply put, this long time and to date, loyal subscriber, will simply use my other resource exclusively if FBG's has no manner to really discuss their content.Obviously, it is their choice and FBGs must do what is best for their business (ie if they lose me and 100 other people because there is no way to talk about the content, but gain 1000 because of the current set up, this is the way to go) but that is a very honest opinion from someone who has subscribed for years.Obviously, this applies to next year - it is too late this year, plus I already paid.

 

[trader jake]

Well this idea isn't going anywhere is it? I am not tech savy, but doesn't website hits help sell to advertisers? Memeber only forums most likely turns this site into a members only site. Stay with me here, member only site, way less web hits, way less advertising and " way less perceived member numbers".

Just a thought.....

Obviously, it is their choice and FBGs must do what is best for their business (ie if they lose me and 100 other people because there is no way to talk about the content, but gain 1000 because of the current set up, this is the way to go) but that is a very honest opinion from someone who has subscribed for years.

bingo...

 

[tenacious_b]

I'd like to see the subscriber article posted blog-style, so we can add comments on the page itself. Keep the MB free.

I guess great minds think alike. I didn't read the thread before I posted my comments, but I hope the powers that be will see that this is a great idea.

It's a good idea, but I can't see any way they can get this done in 2005 with their current staffing. What you're asking for is a lot of work, and it won't draw in (m)any new subscribers this year. I agree that it would be nice to have a place to discuss the subscriber content, though.

It is NOT a lot of work to add a comments section to each subscriber article. Every Joe Schmo with a blog has one.

The technology they're using to store their articles now is not the same technology that "every joe schmo" is using for their blogs. You'd be asking them to change technologies, copy all their content over to a blog, set up security around the blog, and do all of this specifically when they're at the peak of their business. It's a lot harder than you seem to think it is. I don't speak for Joe and co., but I think it's completely unrealistic to expect this in 2005, even if they were willing to do it at some point in the future. Late August is not a good time to add something this big to their schedule.

It doesn't take much effort to add a comments section to any web page. We're not talking about very complicated technology here.

 

[Marc Levin]

Joe and David have been very clear that we aren't going to go this route. I understand the request, but I just don't ever see it happening. I often refer to the message boards as our lobby. We aren't going to deny access to our lobby for non-subscribers.

Since there has been so much commentary with one line "please have a subnscriber forum," I thought I'd bring up post #2 in this thread.

 

[jurb26]

where do you think guys like yourself, Woodrow, bostonfred, and about a thousand other quality posters be? bringing quality material to the shark pool? what if a few staff members continue to contribute a great deal to the shark pool>>>then they'll have subscribers #####ing and moaning to no end about, "i pay $25 you should be answering my question 1st...not wasting time with those novices in the shark pool"

Who is advocating that a forum like this entitles anyone, let alone subscribers, 100% of the FBG attention? It is simply a place to discuss what is supposed to be teh most in depth information provided by the site w/o fear of "lock down" on the discussion. I hate to say it, but that sound just like something a "3 digiter" would say. Subscribing does not entitle anyone to more or less of the attention of the staff. Only to the work they have provided. I for one would like to discuss in a FREE manor that work with others that I see as the most knowledgable in the trade (read as the POSTERS on this board). Currently I can not do that and agree with Koya, that makes me far less inclined to pay for it.

 

[tenacious_b]

Allowing people to comment on subscriber content with a blog-like comment feature wouldn't take anything away from the forums. In all honesty I don't always read the entire subscriber article, but I ALWAYS read the two or three comments they post at the bottom of the article from the forums. I don't know why that is. Maybe I just like to see many opinions rather than just a few.

 

[Ministry of Pain]

I would like to see a subscriber-only message board. But, as mentioned in another thread, not like the Shark Pool. We wouldn't be able to create threads, but there would be threads with the titles of the articles posted by Joe, etc and we would then discuss only those articles. That way, The Shark Pool remains basically the same.

I vote for this too. When I read the articles, I want to chat with the person that wrote them and creat a discussion forum...I think it would add a lot and the message boards would still be great. I'm all for it.

 

[tenacious_b]

Joe and David have been very clear that we aren't going to go this route. I understand the request, but I just don't ever see it happening. I often refer to the message boards as our lobby. We aren't going to deny access to our lobby for non-subscribers.

Since there has been so much commentary with one line "please have a subnscriber forum," I thought I'd bring up post #2 in this thread.

That's why the suggestion has been made to allow people to comment on subscriber articles in a blog-like fashion. Obviously the main reason why Joe and David don't want a subscriber's forum is because they don't want traffic to disappear from the free forum. A comment feature is a great compromise. It's fairly easy to implement, subscribers can comment on subscriber content, and nothing is taken away from the free forums. It might be more important to get new subscribers, but if such a simple solution can help the site keep current subscribers then what's the problem?

 

[bostonfred]

I'd like to see the subscriber article posted blog-style, so we can add comments on the page itself.  Keep the MB free.

I guess great minds think alike. I didn't read the thread before I posted my comments, but I hope the powers that be will see that this is a great idea.

It's a good idea, but I can't see any way they can get this done in 2005 with their current staffing. What you're asking for is a lot of work, and it won't draw in (m)any new subscribers this year. I agree that it would be nice to have a place to discuss the subscriber content, though.

It is NOT a lot of work to add a comments section to each subscriber article. Every Joe Schmo with a blog has one.

The technology they're using to store their articles now is not the same technology that "every joe schmo" is using for their blogs. You'd be asking them to change technologies, copy all their content over to a blog, set up security around the blog, and do all of this specifically when they're at the peak of their business. It's a lot harder than you seem to think it is. I don't speak for Joe and co., but I think it's completely unrealistic to expect this in 2005, even if they were willing to do it at some point in the future. Late August is not a good time to add something this big to their schedule.

It doesn't take much effort to add a comments section to any web page. We're not talking about very complicated technology here.

I don't think you work in IT. It takes a lot of time to make a change to every single page of subscriber content, make sure that data is secured along with the rest of their subscriber content, give people the ability to add comments, give peope the ability to edit or delete comments, match subscriber usernames to message board screennames, create a capacity for those usernames to show up next to posts, find a place to store those comments, find a place to put them in a database, make sure you have enough disk space for the volume of comments you expect, posibly reindex the database so you can display them with good performance, test the thing, and roll it out.

 

[tenacious_b]

I would like to see a subscriber-only message board. But, as mentioned in another thread, not like the Shark Pool. We wouldn't be able to create threads, but there would be threads with the titles of the articles posted by Joe, etc and we would then discuss only those articles. That way, The Shark Pool remains basically the same.

I vote for this too. When I read the articles, I want to chat with the person that wrote them and creat a discussion forum...I think it would add a lot and the message boards would still be great. I'm all for it.

Agreed, that's as good of an idea as allowing comments. In fact it's better and easier to implement.

 

[tenacious_b]

I'd like to see the subscriber article posted blog-style, so we can add comments on the page itself. Keep the MB free.

I guess great minds think alike. I didn't read the thread before I posted my comments, but I hope the powers that be will see that this is a great idea.

It's a good idea, but I can't see any way they can get this done in 2005 with their current staffing. What you're asking for is a lot of work, and it won't draw in (m)any new subscribers this year. I agree that it would be nice to have a place to discuss the subscriber content, though.

It is NOT a lot of work to add a comments section to each subscriber article. Every Joe Schmo with a blog has one.

The technology they're using to store their articles now is not the same technology that "every joe schmo" is using for their blogs. You'd be asking them to change technologies, copy all their content over to a blog, set up security around the blog, and do all of this specifically when they're at the peak of their business. It's a lot harder than you seem to think it is. I don't speak for Joe and co., but I think it's completely unrealistic to expect this in 2005, even if they were willing to do it at some point in the future. Late August is not a good time to add something this big to their schedule.

It doesn't take much effort to add a comments section to any web page. We're not talking about very complicated technology here.

I don't think you work in IT. It takes a lot of time to make a change to every single page of subscriber content, make sure that data is secured along with the rest of their subscriber content, give people the ability to add comments, give peope the ability to edit or delete comments, match subscriber usernames to message board screennames, create a capacity for those usernames to show up next to posts, find a place to store those comments, find a place to put them in a database, make sure you have enough disk space for the volume of comments you expect, posibly reindex the database so you can display them with good performance, test the thing, and roll it out.

No I don't work in IT, but I've created web pages. It's not that hard and it doesn't have to be incredibly feature rich. Anyway, I like someone else's idea of a subscriber message board where users can't create threads -- only comment on footballguys created threads. That's easy to setup and there is no reason not to do it.

 

[Shrek]

Joe and David have been very clear that we aren't going to go this route. I understand the request, but I just don't ever see it happening. I often refer to the message boards as our lobby. We aren't going to deny access to our lobby for non-subscribers.

Since there has been so much commentary with one line "please have a subnscriber forum," I thought I'd bring up post #2 in this thread.

Despite the fact that I think this is basically a nice way of saying "If you don't like it, don't let the door hit your ### on the way out", I will point out that this is a faulty analogy. No one is asking for the "lobby" to be closed to non-subscribers. They are proposing a separate area, adjacent to the "lobby" for those that pay extra, so that they may freely discuss the topics that they pay extra for. If they aren't going to do it, fine. But asking for it or discussing it is not unreasonable.

 

[kevthegrad]

Joe and David have been very clear that we aren't going to go this route. I understand the request, but I just don't ever see it happening. I often refer to the message boards as our lobby. We aren't going to deny access to our lobby for non-subscribers.

Since there has been so much commentary with one line "please have a subnscriber forum," I thought I'd bring up post #2 in this thread.

Poor footballguys, I can just see them reading all these arm-chair website QB's saying "you think you can run it, you run it!" hahahah Everybody needs to chill out. They will take our suggestions and comments to heart, and if it's feesable for them to do, they will.

In the meantime, lets focus on the important thing here, and that's getting a Dynasty forum out of them!

 

[Rounders]

While we are on the subject of member benefits, how about "member only" jackets for all of us?

 

[ookook]

I think the best solution is to allow open and free discussion of paid content (short of cut-and-paste). If anything, it would jsut encourage more people to subscribe.Yeah, I know. Paid folk then say "why did I pay?". Screw 'em.Enough people want it, let them chat away freely and let everybody read. How much could they really piece togethor anyway?They still won't have DD....

 

[Fla\/\/ed]

How about a forum just for the complainers.

 

[reg]

I'd like to see a separate dynasty-only discussion forum.

Too often flame wars erupt over players when people are playing two entirely different formats.

Now THIS I would support!!! I go crazy sorting through all the re-draft stuff, and would LOVE to exchange ideas and opinions with dynasty only owners.

Joe, David, can we get your thoughts on this???

has been discussed and shot down a few times in the past. i wouldn't expect one.

 

[jurb26]

he meantime, lets focus on the important thing here, and that's getting a Dynasty forum out of them!

Why, dynasty threads and info do not get "locked down" and is freely discussed in the SP. Pay stuff does and is not freely discussed. I think the latter is of greater importance personally.

 

[Iron_Far]

How about a forum just for the complainers.

 

[glock]

I can with all honesty say, and I have expressed this elsewhere:

If there is not some forum where we can dissect and discuss, in detail, the information that we pay for, the information will no longer warrant paying $25.00.

I agree you need a good free forum for general discussion, but the blog idea of commenting on the articles in the pay section seems like a logical way to bridge the divide.

Simply put, this long time and to date, loyal subscriber, will simply use my other resource exclusively if FBG's has no manner to really discuss their content.

Obviously, it is their choice and FBGs must do what is best for their business (ie if they lose me and 100 other people because there is no way to talk about the content, but gain 1000 because of the current set up, this is the way to go) but that is a very honest opinion from someone who has subscribed for years.

Obviously, this applies to next year - it is too late this year, plus I already paid.

:ditto:

 

[Stinger Ray]

FBGs doesn't want a subscriber forum because than they can be called out on some of their pay material. Life is easier for them the way it is now and not allowing any discussions on that material.

 

[CaptainHucklebuck]

Jesus, if it will get all of you people to shut up about administrative crap in the Shark Pool, you cando whatever you want as far as I'm concerned. How many years has this been discussed? And shot down every time?

 

[PRS Guy]

Joe and David have been very clear that we aren't going to go this route. I understand the request, but I just don't ever see it happening. I often refer to the message boards as our lobby. We aren't going to deny access to our lobby for non-subscribers.

Since there has been so much commentary with one line "please have a subnscriber forum," I thought I'd bring up post #2 in this thread.

So the decision is to let everyone into the lobby. The paying subscribers are allowed to go to the upper floors and check things out. Yet, once they have seen things in the upper floors, they are not allowed to come back to the lobby and thoroughly discuss what’s inside, since what’s inside is for subscribers only and such commingled discussions about content with payers and non-payers is prohibited. This decision to not allow detailed upper floor discussion is made to protect the interests of those on the inside, who don’t want their upper floor content distributed for free, and for the non-paying lobby guests, who have no right to free access of what’s inside, yet shouldn’t be locked out of the lobby since they are prime candidates for upper floor access in the future, clearly benefiting those on the inside. Those who have paid however for upper floor access are slighted in favor of the lobby guests and those on the upper floors writing the content, both of which have their interests looked after with respect to lobby access.

What’s more, the paying subscribers aren’t asking for the lobby to be fully restricted (my interpretation), only to have their own area where they would be allowed to discuss the upper floors in peace, without worrying about revealing something to the lobby guests that would mitigate the interests of those providing content on the upper floors.

Rather than opening this up for discussion with the paying subscribers, many of whom would probably even be willing to pay an extra amount for such access, the almost militia like response from those on the inside to their paying subscribers is stated, then repeated arrogantly as no- with no room for discussion.

I think this is a reasonable request that should not be shot down with such a cavalier attitude.

We as subscribers would like an avenue to discuss the content that we are paying for with other paying subscribers at some point in the future, time and cost permitting.

 

[glock]

Joe and David have been very clear that we aren't going to go this route. I understand the request, but I just don't ever see it happening. I often refer to the message boards as our lobby. We aren't going to deny access to our lobby for non-subscribers.

Since there has been so much commentary with one line "please have a subnscriber forum," I thought I'd bring up post #2 in this thread.

So the decision is to let everyone into the lobby. The paying subscribers are allowed to go to the upper floors and check things out. Yet, once they have seen things in the upper floors, they are not allowed to come back to the lobby and thoroughly discuss what’s inside, since what’s inside is for subscribers only and such commingled discussions about content with payers and non-payers is prohibited. This decision to not allow detailed upper floor discussion is made to protect the interests of those on the inside, who don’t want their upper floor content distributed for free, and for the non-paying lobby guests, who have no right to free access of what’s inside, yet shouldn’t be locked out of the lobby since they are prime candidates for upper floor access in the future, clearly benefiting those on the inside. Those who have paid however for upper floor access are slighted in favor of the lobby guests and those on the upper floors writing the content, both of which have their interests looked after with respect to lobby access.

What’s more, the paying subscribers aren’t asking for the lobby to be fully restricted (my interpretation), only to have their own area where they would be allowed to discuss the upper floors in peace, without worrying about revealing something to the lobby guests that would mitigate the interests of those providing content on the upper floors.

Rather than opening this up for discussion with the paying subscribers, many of whom would probably even be willing to pay an extra amount for such access, the almost militia like response from those on the inside to their paying subscribers is stated, then repeated arrogantly as no- with no room for discussion.

I think this is a reasonable request that should not be shot down with such a cavalier attitude.

We as subscribers would like an avenue to discuss the content that we are paying for with other paying subscribers at some point in the future, time and cost permitting.

:crickets:

 

[3C's]

Joe and David have been very clear that we aren't going to go this route. I understand the request, but I just don't ever see it happening. I often refer to the message boards as our lobby. We aren't going to deny access to our lobby for non-subscribers.

Since there has been so much commentary with one line "please have a subnscriber forum," I thought I'd bring up post #2 in this thread.

The paying subscribers are allowed to go to the upper floors and check things out. Yet, once they have seen things in the upper floors, they are not allowed to come back to the lobby and thoroughly discuss what’s inside, since what’s inside is for subscribers only and such commingled discussions about content with payers and non-payers is prohibited.

The first rule of Fight Club is - you do not talk about Fight Club.

 

[Red Hot Tamales]

Joe and David have been very clear that we aren't going to go this route. I understand the request, but I just don't ever see it happening. I often refer to the message boards as our lobby. We aren't going to deny access to our lobby for non-subscribers.

Since there has been so much commentary with one line "please have a subnscriber forum," I thought I'd bring up post #2 in this thread.

The paying subscribers are allowed to go to the upper floors and check things out. Yet, once they have seen things in the upper floors, they are not allowed to come back to the lobby and thoroughly discuss what’s inside, since what’s inside is for subscribers only and such commingled discussions about content with payers and non-payers is prohibited.

The first rule of Fight Club is - you do not talk about Fight Club.

What's the second rule?

 

[3C's]

Joe and David have been very clear that we aren't going to go this route. I understand the request, but I just don't ever see it happening. I often refer to the message boards as our lobby. We aren't going to deny access to our lobby for non-subscribers.

Since there has been so much commentary with one line "please have a subnscriber forum," I thought I'd bring up post #2 in this thread.

The paying subscribers are allowed to go to the upper floors and check things out. Yet, once they have seen things in the upper floors, they are not allowed to come back to the lobby and thoroughly discuss what’s inside, since what’s inside is for subscribers only and such commingled discussions about content with payers and non-payers is prohibited.

The first rule of Fight Club is - you do not talk about Fight Club.

What's the second rule?

The second rule of Fight Club is - never ask for a subscriber only forum.

 

[crazygutgut]

The way this forum (Invision) is set up, you CAN make it where a group of people can view a part of the forum that others can't. On top of that, you can password protect that part of the forum if you wanted to.Just make a group called "Subscribers", give them, Admins, and Mods the only access to view that part of the forum.

 

[wraith5]

The first rule of Fight Club is - you do not talk about Fight Club.

What's the second rule?

The second rule of Fight Club is - never ask for a subscriber only forum.

 

[the rover]

The way this forum (Invision) is set up, you CAN make it where a group of people can view a part of the forum that others can't. On top of that, you can password protect that part of the forum if you wanted to.

Just make a group called "Subscribers", give them, Admins, and Mods the only access to view that part of the forum.

I think you're missing the point. It isn't that non-subscribers would be put off by not being able to access certain forums. It's that if there were subscriber forums, there is a concern that the subscribers, including many knowledgeable posters, would confine their discussions to that forum, lowering the overall quality of the accessible forums.

 

[the widowmaker]

Sounds like a plan... and let's exclude anyone with a 5 digit member number too.

too funny

 

[glock]

The way this forum (Invision) is set up, you CAN make it where a group of people can view a part of the forum that others can't. On top of that, you can password protect that part of the forum if you wanted to.

Just make a group called "Subscribers", give them, Admins, and Mods the only access to view that part of the forum.

I think you're missing the point. It isn't that non-subscribers would be put off by not being able to access certain forums. It's that if there were subscriber forums, there is a concern that the subscribers, including many knowledgeable posters, would confine their discussions to that forum, lowering the overall quality of the accessible forums.

Link?

 

[bagger.]

The way this forum (Invision) is set up, you CAN make it where a group of people can view a part of the forum that others can't. On top of that, you can password protect that part of the forum if you wanted to.

Just make a group called "Subscribers", give them, Admins, and Mods the only access to view that part of the forum.

 

[wertwert]

I'm a subscriber and vote to keep the message boards open. The only area I would tweak would be the Assistant Coach forum. Why not make it similar to Google Questions/Answers where responses are paid for buy the question asker. How it works:Question are submitted with a value.People qualified by Google respond.If the answers meet the standards of the asker, then payment is submitted.Or a credit system can be established. Answer 3 questions, get 3 answered.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Joe and David have been very clear that we aren't going to go this route. I understand the request, but I just don't ever see it happening. I often refer to the message boards as our lobby. We aren't going to deny access to our lobby for non-subscribers.

Since there has been so much commentary with one line "please have a subnscriber forum," I thought I'd bring up post #2 in this thread.

So the decision is to let everyone into the lobby. The paying subscribers are allowed to go to the upper floors and check things out. Yet, once they have seen things in the upper floors, they are not allowed to come back to the lobby and thoroughly discuss what’s inside, since what’s inside is for subscribers only and such commingled discussions about content with payers and non-payers is prohibited. This decision to not allow detailed upper floor discussion is made to protect the interests of those on the inside, who don’t want their upper floor content distributed for free, and for the non-paying lobby guests, who have no right to free access of what’s inside, yet shouldn’t be locked out of the lobby since they are prime candidates for upper floor access in the future, clearly benefiting those on the inside. Those who have paid however for upper floor access are slighted in favor of the lobby guests and those on the upper floors writing the content, both of which have their interests looked after with respect to lobby access.

What’s more, the paying subscribers aren’t asking for the lobby to be fully restricted (my interpretation), only to have their own area where they would be allowed to discuss the upper floors in peace, without worrying about revealing something to the lobby guests that would mitigate the interests of those providing content on the upper floors.

Rather than opening this up for discussion with the paying subscribers, many of whom would probably even be willing to pay an extra amount for such access, the almost militia like response from those on the inside to their paying subscribers is stated, then repeated arrogantly as no- with no room for discussion.

I think this is a reasonable request that should not be shot down with such a cavalier attitude.

We as subscribers would like an avenue to discuss the content that we are paying for with other paying subscribers at some point in the future, time and cost permitting.

Well thought out, kept to your point. Liked the parts about the different floors in the hotel. Didn't like the part about adding expenses. Don't know if it'll change anything but I'll give it the grade of : AWell done.

 

[PRS Guy]

I'm a subscriber and vote to keep the message boards open.

The only area I would tweak would be the Assistant Coach forum. Why not make it similar to Google Questions/Answers where responses are paid for buy the question asker.

How it works:

Question are submitted with a value.

People qualified by Google respond.

If the answers meet the standards of the asker, then payment is submitted.

Or a credit system can be established. Answer 3 questions, get 3 answered.

I want to keep the message boards open too, the point would be for the suscribers to have a forum where we can talk about subscriber content. That's all, nothing more.

 

[PRS Guy]

Joe and David have been very clear that we aren't going to go this route. I understand the request, but I just don't ever see it happening. I often refer to the message boards as our lobby. We aren't going to deny access to our lobby for non-subscribers.

Since there has been so much commentary with one line "please have a subnscriber forum," I thought I'd bring up post #2 in this thread.

So the decision is to let everyone into the lobby. The paying subscribers are allowed to go to the upper floors and check things out. Yet, once they have seen things in the upper floors, they are not allowed to come back to the lobby and thoroughly discuss what’s inside, since what’s inside is for subscribers only and such commingled discussions about content with payers and non-payers is prohibited. This decision to not allow detailed upper floor discussion is made to protect the interests of those on the inside, who don’t want their upper floor content distributed for free, and for the non-paying lobby guests, who have no right to free access of what’s inside, yet shouldn’t be locked out of the lobby since they are prime candidates for upper floor access in the future, clearly benefiting those on the inside. Those who have paid however for upper floor access are slighted in favor of the lobby guests and those on the upper floors writing the content, both of which have their interests looked after with respect to lobby access.

What’s more, the paying subscribers aren’t asking for the lobby to be fully restricted (my interpretation), only to have their own area where they would be allowed to discuss the upper floors in peace, without worrying about revealing something to the lobby guests that would mitigate the interests of those providing content on the upper floors.

Rather than opening this up for discussion with the paying subscribers, many of whom would probably even be willing to pay an extra amount for such access, the almost militia like response from those on the inside to their paying subscribers is stated, then repeated arrogantly as no- with no room for discussion.

I think this is a reasonable request that should not be shot down with such a cavalier attitude.

We as subscribers would like an avenue to discuss the content that we are paying for with other paying subscribers at some point in the future, time and cost permitting.

Well thought out, kept to your point. Liked the parts about the different floors in the hotel. Didn't like the part about adding expenses. Don't know if it'll change anything but I'll give it the grade of : AWell done.

Thanks

 

[Gold Plated Nails]

The way this forum (Invision) is set up, you CAN make it where a group of people can view a part of the forum that others can't. On top of that, you can password protect that part of the forum if you wanted to.

Just make a group called "Subscribers", give them, Admins, and Mods the only access to view that part of the forum.

I think you're missing the point. It isn't that non-subscribers would be put off by not being able to access certain forums. It's that if there were subscriber forums, there is a concern that the subscribers, including many knowledgeable posters, would confine their discussions to that forum, lowering the overall quality of the accessible forums.

This is the reason I have to believe. Too many of the better seasoned posters would post in the subscriber only forum. Even if they did it rarely, it would still impact the overall quality of the Shark Pool. That said, as a paying member, I would like to be able to discuss the pay articles as well.

 

[Davej626]

I can with all honesty say, and I have expressed this elsewhere:

If there is not some forum where we can dissect and discuss, in detail, the information that we pay for, the information will no longer warrant paying $25.00.

I agree you need a good free forum for general discussion, but the blog idea of commenting on the articles in the pay section seems like a logical way to bridge the divide.

Simply put, this long time and to date, loyal subscriber, will simply use my other resource exclusively if FBG's has no manner to really discuss their content.

Obviously, it is their choice and FBGs must do what is best for their business (ie if they lose me and 100 other people because there is no way to talk about the content, but gain 1000 because of the current set up, this is the way to go) but that is a very honest opinion from someone who has subscribed for years.

Obviously, this applies to next year - it is too late this year, plus I already paid.

Wow. Twice this week. I completely agree with Koya.

 

[ttiger72]

I would really like to hear Joe's or David's thoughts on making the articles available with a comments portion. www.techrepublic.com is a site that does it very well IMO

 

[red]

Count me OUT - and I'm a subscriber.

I'd prefer to see the free flow of information from everyone, rather than having a 'he-man non-subscriber haters club", and I'll deal with the all the useless chaff that can accumulate on the board to get it.

 

[kevthegrad]

e n o u g h :X

 

[grabnmcbutt]

I would like to have my own private message board where I could post all my own opinions and not worry about anybody readning or commenting on them. Also I would like to have two sections to that board one for my member which would be private to only me and the second woud be for pictures of my member for all nonmembers. This would be the section of the board where nonmembers could complain about the late postings of information in the member area. But since it would only be private to me nobody would really have access either the private member section of my member or the nonmember side of the private board for complants regarding my member postings. Once that has been established then I think the next step would be to create a seperate section for those members who only want to quote what I said in my private member only message board which then could be used as a model board for those who would like their own member board. They could add a section for trading advice. But this section would have to be set up on the buddy system and each person would then have a trading partner for the trading advice section. Once a week everyweek after the Thanksgiving game it would be permissible to trade your trading partner but only after posting so during the preseason schedule.

 

[kevthegrad]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=177982

 

[My Hope Street Alias]

I know it's a done deal but I, too, would like a place where we could discuss subscriber only content.

 

[Righetti]

next thing you know, you'll be making me put on a tie when i post.

 

[Marc Levin]

In the meantime, lets focus on the important thing here, and that's getting a Dynasty forum out of them!

now you are on the right track - that has been discussed positively.

 

[Marc Levin]

The down and dirty answer here is that adding a subscriber only MB will create way more headaches for us than helping you all out.There is no doubt we will be expected to give that "subscriber only" board answers to why we did things certain ways - after all, that is the subscribers who pay for our service and have questions. Also, the more talk in a subscriber only board, the less talk there will be over here.