Only Apug Subscribers in the group exchange?

[Jeremy]

Should the group exchange be limited to Apug Subscribers? This would increase the amount of Subscriber only content and greatly reduce the number of photogs who seem to drop in for the exchange and then disappear without ever sending any prints (has happened twice in the exchange).

Asking for opinions.

 

[Travis Nunn]

I think this should be one of the benefits of subscribing. Period.

 

[roteague]

I voted yes in this poll. It shows that the participant has some level of commitment to APUG.

 

[Bruce Osgood]

I voted YES for all the reasons you mention

 

[avandesande]

Someone could start a group exchange that allows anyone. Seems silly to me.

 

[Marc Leest]

I voted no since this is on the edge of discrimination.

M.

 

[Dave Parker]

I voted no since this is on the edge of discrimination.

M.

There is quite a few things in life that you have to be paid member to participate in the activities, so I don't see how this could be considered discrimination, it would just be one of the perks of being a paid member, and being a paid member would show some commitment.

Just my .02

Dave

 

[avandesande]

If I pay for it I want a members only forum with ratings like the classifieds.
I don't think this is right for us to make rules like this for people when it is not sanctioned by the forum owners.

There is quite a few things in life that you have to be paid member to participate in the activities, so I don't see how this could be considered discrimination, it would just be one of the perks of being a paid member, and being a paid member would show some commitment.

Just my .02

Dave

 

[Jeremy]

If I pay for it I want a members only forum with ratings like the classifieds.
I don't think this is right for us to make rules like this for people when it is not sanctioned by the forum owners.

Any changes to the group exchange whereby it would require subscription status would not be done without express consent of the forum owner. This was just a poll to drum up opinions.

 

[avandesande]

I just think that it would create confusion and hard feelings. I think subscriber perks should be in subscriber only areas.

Any changes to the group exchange whereby it would require subscription status would not be done without express consent of the forum owner. This was just a poll to drum up opinions.

 

[Jeremy]

I just think that it would create confusion and hard feelings. I think subscriber perks should be in subscriber only areas.

Ahh, I understand what you mean now. I will have to talk to Sean and see if I could have the forum status changed so only subscribers could view it... this would take care of a lot of confusion, thank you for bringing up the point.

 

[mark]

I don't think this is a good idea at all. It would turn off a lot of people. just ban those who crap out.

 

[Dave Parker]

I didn't think that the fourm owner was the one that started the exchanges, I always thought these were started and done by the membership? Myself personally, if they signed up and did not follow through, would ban them from future exchanges for a period of time..

Dave

 

[gr82bart]

This is going to be a good thread....

Art.

 

[Paul Sorensen]

I voted no since this is on the edge of discrimination.

M.

I agree with Dave that this is not discrimination. Anyone who can afford to mail several prints to different parts of the world can afford to pay a few bucks top be a subscriber. Since we are not barring these folks from subscribing, but asking that they subscribe before participating in this particular event, I don't see it as discrimination.

 

[avandesande]

I could argue some more for the sake of arguing but I think most of the arguments have been made, guess it is just a matter of waiting for Sean to wake up.

This is going to be a good thread....

Art.

 

[Jeremy]

I could argue some more for the sake of arguing but I think most of the arguments have been made, guess it is just a matter of waiting for Sean to wake up.

This idea has not, I repeat HAS NOT been put forth before Sean yet. This was just a poll by the group exchange moderator to gather general opinions. The next exchange is a couple of months away and so I thought I would test the waters and see where people stood. With Sean switching to Apug full-time I felt that anything that adds more subscriber-only content would be a good thing as it hopefully means more influence for people to send $$$. I want to wait a couple of days or weeks for opinions to filter in before any decisions are made.

 

[gr82bart]

With Sean switching to Apug full-time I felt that anything that adds more subscriber-only content would be a good thing as it hopefully means more influence for people to send $$$.

Jeremy,

I think this is great idea. If it helps Sean increase subscriptions and consequently his full time living, I'm all for it.

It may also help in the other never-to-be-mentioned-for-fear-of-death-plus-it's-just-an-uncool-thing-to-call-someone-who-didn't-honour-their-committment-for-more-than-3-6-9-12-months-after-repeated-reminders area.

I voted YES.

Regards, Art.

 

[donbga]

I agree with Dave that this is not discrimination. Anyone who can afford to mail several prints to different parts of the world can afford to pay a few bucks top be a subscriber. Since we are not barring these folks from subscribing, but asking that they subscribe before participating in this particular event, I don't see it as discrimination.

Actually, I think the premise or mission of APUG is *QUITE* discriminitory, but it is non-discriminatory based on an individuals personal attributes, like race or gender.

And as Sean points out paid membership does have it's perks. Whether paying for a subscription to receive those perks is desirable to a non-member has to be determined by them. This is not at all unlike joining other organizations.


My 2 cents,

 

[donbga]

I don't think this is a good idea at all. It would turn off a lot of people. just ban those who crap out.

APUG already turns off some people off for various reasons. Having an online organization like this isn't an entitlement and having extra benefits for paying members isn't going to affect the head count by much anyway. Any photography club or organization has membership fees even when the organizers are volunteers. As long as the fees are reasonable and affordable I think people can make a decision based on what they will get.

The practice of photography isn't cheap or free be it digital or analog.

 

[Dave Parker]

Jeremy,

I think this is great idea. If it helps Sean increase subscriptions and consequently his full time living, I'm all for it.

It may also help in the other never-to-be-mentioned-for-fear-of-death-plus-it's-just- [moderator inserted space here] an-uncool-thing-to-call-someone-who-didn't-honour-their-committment- [moderator inserted space here] for-more-than-3-6-9-12-months-after-repeated-reminders area.

I voted YES.

Regards, Art.

Way to go Art, you tied everything together with dashes and goofed up the way the page interpets the table...

LOL

 

[gr82bart]

Way to go Art, you tied everything together with dashes and goofed up the way the page interpets the table...

You mean I can't say d-e-a-b-e-a-t-s ? Not only is it politically incorrect, it's also uncool!

Art. (Not Print Exchange Challenged, but it's OK if I was.)

 

[Bob F.]

Mmmmm, tricky one. My initial instinct is to allow non-subscribers, but I do take the point about commitment and the cost of sending prints Vs the cost of subscription and the tendency for drive-by signing up...

Allowing for the number of posts or length of membership for non-subscribers is probably too awkward and simply too much mucking about to be practical.


K, - have to go with gut instinct on this one and say allow.

If it is decided to only allow subscribers, I would advise against a subscriber only forum as then non-subscribers will never see what they are missing as one more incentive to cough up...

Cheers, Bob.

 

[KenM]

I don't think this is a good idea at all. It would turn off a lot of people. just ban those who crap out.

Banning someone after the fact won't work - they've already accomplished their goals: get free prints without doing any work.

I therefore agree with limiting this to subscribers.

 

[MattKing]

I just think that it would create confusion and hard feelings. I think subscriber perks should be in subscriber only areas.

There probably should be a "teaser" in the forums that non-subscribers can see - something like "subscribe now and you too can participate in ...."

I will vote yes on this as soon as I finish this Reply.

Matt