[BlueTrees]

Originally Posted by lupojohn

It's actually offense with an s, but no offense with what about i'm about to say. Why would they have to refund everyone's paid membership? What i'm saying is not to refund people's money, but to change the rule to allow everyone to put pictures in their signatures. You can still pay for your membership. As someone in a previous post said, this is a perk, which I disagree with, but i'm sure there are many other perks you paid members can receive. See, laughing makes it seem like the paid members are thumbing it in the non-paying members nose, even though that's probably not your intention. And you can't compare this to real life. Stuff is more serious in real life.

Um offence is the British spelling which we use in Australia.

Why would I pay membership for something which other people would get for free? I would want a refund and I'm sure all the other premium members would too.

And it practically is a "real life" situation. It's real money we're paying, if you went to a shop and you wanted something you would have to pay the money. Those who pay it get the item, those who don't have to miss out. That's just the way life works.

[lupojohn]

Originally Posted by Drimal

I think they should at least allow non premium members to have 140x140 size avatars like it used to be for everybody before the introduction of the premium concept.

Current size 96x96 is really small.

There is no valid reson for this reduction in my eyes other than "forcing" people to buy premium.

Eh, i'm fine with the size of my avatar. Why not allow 96x96 size pictures for non-premium members in sigs? And I agree with your last point.

[lupojohn]

Originally Posted by BlueTrees

Um offence is the British spelling which we use in Australia.

Why would I pay membership for someone which other people would get for free? I would want a refund and I'm sure all the other premium members would too.

And it practically is a "real life" situation. It's real money we're paying, if you went to a shop and you wanted something you would have to pay the money. Those who pay it get the item, those who don't have to miss out. That's just the way life works.

Well, we use an s here in the States.

You're not paying ''for'' us. As I said, there are still other perks you'd get that we wouldn't. You can tell us what those are.

Well, maybe so, but sometimes, when other people ''miss out'', those who state this(you)help the other people. Rational, don't you think?

[lupojohn]

Oh, one other thing, BlueTrees: someone here said premium membership was $10. Is that true?

[BlueTrees]

Um whatever. I was just politely trying to tell you that you're wasting your time complaining because it won't make a difference. Have a great day.

And yes it's $10 to be a member for one year, $25 for a lifetime membership.

[lupojohn]

Originally Posted by BlueTrees

$25 for a lifetime membership.

Is this $25 a one-time fee and if not, is it monthly, yearly, etc.?

[BlueTrees]

The lifetime membership is $25 for 20 years. You pay it all upfront and then don't have to pay anything after that.

[lupojohn]

Originally Posted by BlueTrees

The lifetime membership is $25 for 20 years. You pay it all upfront and then don't have to pay anything after that.

Eh, that's a pretty sweet deal. I'd have to choose between the membership here or my bipolar meds. Thank you for the information.

[Andreas]

Originally Posted by lupojohn

Eh, that's a pretty sweet deal. I'd have to choose between the membership here or my bipolar meds. Thank you for the information.

I would go for the medication if I were you.

[Joe.]

Originally Posted by Andreas

I would go for the medication if I were you.

Oh my god

[lupojohn]

Originally Posted by Joe.

Oh my god

It's not really funny, but he's also probably right.

[Williamsser]

Originally Posted by lupojohn

How and why should that be a perk? And also, in these economic times, maybe the site should temporarily discontinue paid memberships as not everyone has that luxury. In any event, there are plenty of other ''perks'' that paid members can get.

Verticalscope's Tennisforum is a business, not a charity. They need to make money, and this is one way they do so.

[lupojohn]

Originally Posted by Williamsser

Verticalscope's Tennisforum is a business, not a charity. They need to make money, and this is one way they do so.

Again, no one's saying they shouldn't have paid memberships. That's not the point. The point is that people are arguing that pictures in signatures are perks and my counterpoint is that there are many more perks a paid member can get besides pictures in signatures.

EDIT: I don't see why we're still commenting. Meelis gave me the info I need, i'll proceed that way and it's now a closed issue since I have to make the choice as outlined above.

[Jalil Sherman]

Originally Posted by pov

I'm okay with it being something for premium members. In fact, I consider it one of the most fair approaches I've come across since having an image in a sig isn't necessary to get enjoy using the site.

And if paying $10/year is tough for you then maybe it would be more beneficial to spend your time generating more income.

I really don't understand why you would pay for a signature or a bigger avatar. Like, what's the psychology behind it?

[Wert.]

if you really want to have a picture everytime you post, why not try something like this:


_______________________________________________