The first page was disappointing ......
That would be the first 4-5 posts, until I got to Rich's explanation of some of the other restrictions of being a non-member that may not serve the Fauna community well. I have to agree with both Kathy Love and Lucille. I would ask those who voted "No" to reconsider their vote, or at least posting again addressing the concerns mentioned by Rich, and which I will also mention here.
No one will dispute the value of the $10 fee for someone who wants to participate in the BOI on a significant, longer term basis, whether that be several threads or a whole year's worth. That is not the issue however. Rich pegged it at a "one-day" user fee. Here are some ideas as to where the benefits would be:
1) Someone new to the hobby is considering a $100 purchase, and has heard of the BOI. A look at existing threads yields no info on the potential vendor. That person must now pay a 10% commission just to ask "Any info on so-and-so." $1 gets them in, and may make them a $10 contributor once they see the value of the BOI by the responses that they get.
2) Sorry, but trader ratings are pretty meaningless at his point, as only customers who are at least $10 members can give a vendor credit, pro or con. Rich specifically mentioned this snag in the system, and this change would invite, rather than discourage, that number as having more meaning. Someone suggested that we could then encourage feedback more easily from customers, as if it were a bad thing. What's wrong with that? If we anger a customer, they usually have the motivation to pay the full $10 just to start a negative thread. The trouble is that the current system discourages positive feedback.
3) Trolls. I know that Rich does not look forward to an expanded role as Sheriff, but one advantage of the current efforts that he has had to make to clean things up is that it does sometimes pay. Only Rich knows if the efforts could be called "income producing". But if a "$1 troll" does join up, then they'll get caught, and fined. So what if they don't want to pay $10, since they only had $1 in to it anyway? For starters, the system is such that once suspended, you cannot even access the site, which is a fitting penalty for a troll. So maybe they come back under a different name? Well, they still have to use a PayPal account, and it becomes a real chore to continue to hide their identity just to save $9 (or likely $8, at that juncture). Rich is very much in a position to judge the effectiveness with which people may circumvent the suspension system, as he's had to deal with it plenty already. What I am saying is that the overwhelming problem with the trolls falls on management, not the members. Let them decide that issue.
4) Someone mentioned that an increase in "good guy posts" may be undesirable as "how many times have we seen someone come in and say something to the contrary"? So, "Good Guy posts" are now undesirable? What's wrong with someone saying "I disagree" to a Good Guy post?
I applaud Rich for his insight, especially when he posted his lingering concerns mid-thread. Flame wars are down because instigators have been banned, or a few of us had our wallets deservedly lightened. The $1 PayPal hurdle will discourage many of the trolls still, who used to be able to just come in off he street and post. I would ask some to reconsider their position. Thank you.