Posted By:
JoannThis is both simple and complicated.
Simple - here are the things we all seem to agree on, for the most part:
1) No individual should have to bear the cost of site maintenance alone.
2) The time it takes to maintain the site should also be worth at least someting.
3) We all like the site, and want to keep it as close to its present feel, policy, culture, etc, as possible.
Complicated:
If we all agree that money should be somewhere in the picture, then it can only come from one of two sources - internal or external. The site can either go "corporate" (someone earlier used that term, and it's probably pretty correct) or "co-op".
I don't object to ads, but also have some agreement with those that object to it. I don't think a day goes by that I am not dealing with the Law of Unintended Consequences in one way or another. It's a slippery slope - if you make this change, there is no way to know what all will come of it down the road.
I also don't think anyone has a major problem with Leon doing it because there seems to be high regard for his outlook and philosophy. But what if the next person is different, and the ad barrier has already been broken? That might be a whole 'nother story.
So the only other option to help out financially is to have the users pay for the use. I would not mind that, myself. I also know that many of the most valuable posters would mind having to pay for it.
Maybe better minds than mine can come up with a Solomon-like solution. I would not only be willing to kick in myself if that's what it comes down to, but I would also be willing to put in more so that others could post without paying, if need be. Like I said ... complicated.
But if there is general agreement that some kind of financial input into the system is needed, then either ads should be okay or we should collectively try to come up with a workable alternative.
Workable = financially manageable for everyone, covers cost and time and is not excessively burdensome to administer.
Any Solomon's out there?
Joann