The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
Stocks D / Disney
|Subject: Re: An open letter to Tom and Dave.||Date: 1/30/2002 6:34 PM|
|Author: tpault||Number: 18905 of 49047|
TMFEdible: If Disney World were to send you, Paul, a free one day ticket in appreciation of having been to the park 100 times in the past, would that really keep you from coming even if you had to pay for your daughter? And would you really feel it was done to belittle your daughter just because she hadn't hit the century mark with you before?
Yes, I would accept the free ticket in that event (and no I wouldn't feel it was to belittle my daughter). In fact, now that you mention it, this is a sore spot amongst the most devoted of Disney fans. They complain that Disney has no rewards program for faithful and persistent patronage. Eisner actually heard that beef a few years ago, and (after I made a suggestion for Disney on a posting site) they came out with the Disney cards that track your purchases and offer you rewards incentives based on your history. (at least that's what was announced)
But the Fool's methodology in choosing free users still seems inequitable for several reasons.
First, and personally, I have more recs, and a higher rec percentage, than many of those who were chosen for free accounts. So I don't really buy that one.
And as for numbers of posts...personally I've always tried to avoid making a nuisance of myself by not dominating a board. Every time someone seems to dominate a board, it upsets other users. Spam, I believe it's called. And I know of some who are the most prolific posters in some boards, and truthfully...about half of their posts should be removed! They call names and make snide remarks, seemingly 24 hours a day. But using your system, they're the apple of your eye and get free accounts.
And then it says in the faq that you are also going by popularity. Personally, I wouldn't brag that one up too much. This criteria is actually a point that supports my contention, that it boils down to a "popularity contest."
You have to play a game in here, to get recs, and to be on people's loved list. Usually, the more you gang up with others on an issue, the more people that will love you. But if you are a maverick who speaks his/her mind, without regard to kissing up to others...well come to find out it will cost you your Motley priveledges, while those who play the game now get in for free. I like recs and the list of those who love me, but if I liked those things too much, I would completely change my style. Many who have the most of those things, are fakes who only know how to stroke the most users, and they live for their recs and being loved.
I believe you guys used the criteria you did for one reason: to keep the boards going while enticing others who may have loved those users, to then pay so they too, can play.
And that, to me, means those with free accounts are bait, or being used kind of like marionette puppets on strings.
In a true community where the people love each other and are fair, the people would say "you have to take all of us, or none."
And Scoopa just said that, and I really admire him for it.
I don't blame Motley for coming up for air, for the third time. But that doesn't mean that feelings wont get hurt by Motley seemingly becoming an exclusive club rather than an inclusive one.
By the way, the "boycott" isn't next week but this Friday, (one day only) and it's not in protest. It was supposed to merely simulate what the boards will look like, minus those who will not be here after Feb 12th. If people are going to pay to stay, it may behoove them to see what the boards will look like, before they pay. Doesn't that sound like a good idea?
|Copyright 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|