A complaint! (Wayyy too obnoxious Ad)

The reason why I stuck with Game Revolution is because you guys don't have subscription plans. Oh, and your reviews.

 

Listen dude, I support my websites if I like them enough. If GR were asking for donations of like $2-$5 to keep their site ad free, I'd donate all the time. I don't like ads, they get in my way and tend to interrupt what I'm trying to read. You yourself complained about ads getting in your way, and now you're going back on it? That's called hypocrisy, my friend, and honestly, I think its time you stopped talking because if you read the beginning of your topic and the rest of your comments you kinda contradict yourself. A lot. Like one hell of a lot. Maybe decide that you really feel passionately about something before you actually complain about it.

 

He hasn't contradicted himself in the least. He understands that ads are used to support the site. What he doesn't like is to be accosted by the ads. So rather than using an ad-blocker, which hurts the site, or leaving the site, which he enjoys, he made an honest effort to get the offending ad removed. He did this in a respectful manner in the hope that the site will be improved.

There is not one iota of hypocrisy in his statements. He, as well as I, want to see this site live on. Ads are a necessary evil, which he as much stated in his first two posts. Donations can only do so much before you tap your user base dry.

No one can stop you from using ad-block but know that you're hurting the sites that you enjoy by doing it. You are making it more difficult for them to continue making content.

 

I don't use those sites... so I suppose that says something right there. =)

A subtle subscription plan that doesn't alienate non subscribers in any way isn't a terrible thing though. Such as, a very very small monthly subscription gets you the ability to remove ads, and maybe a little star next to your name? Something that won't limit content to anyone, subscribing or no, and only gets rid of ads would probably be a decent idea. At the very least, it won't insult or hurt the non-subscribing group (They won't even notice really) and the subscribing group can be satisfied they are both supporting GR, and being able to come here ad free. Anything beyond that like tiered content or subscriber first content, or subscriber only prizes would be a bad idea IMO.

Very nice Strawman argument. I see you're attempting to attack my character rather than my point? Well that's fine. I think Mindlesstype did a very nice job of already explaining why, you are in fact, completely wrong. But to further drive home the point, here is an analogy: I can complain about the high price of video games, while still decrying people who pirate video games. They are not mutually exclusive, and this is exactly the same thing. We both agree ads are a pain in the butt, but I decry the behavior of putting your own browsing convenience ahead of the livelihood of the men and women who try to run this site. You "say" you support websites you really like, but talk is cheap. I'm not going to speculate on how much you have or haven't donated or subscribed to other websites, but we both know GR doesn't have a way to donate or subscribe. So at the end of the day, you haven't supported GR in any way. If anything, you're a drain on their resources by using their bandwidth (which yes, costs them money). Anthony even asked straight up, for people to stop using adblocker because it hurts the site. But you said, in as many words "I'm not going to inconvenience myself so Dan can keep his job." I can only hope that you one day you have a job that relies on people like yourself to stay afloat.

 

Aright I get it. You just wanna be Mr. High and Mighty when it.comes to things. That's fine, enjoy it. How about you just keep your mouth shut when it comes to a topic that YOU made about disliking ads and your sudden support for ads. I'm tired of this, I don't need your attitude. Honestly, I miss the way the forums used to be and the posters who used to be around, now it seems that all the newer more frequent posters are just here to troll. Like you. Enjoy living under your bridge, troll

 

You're right, the discussion kind of started with unneeded attitude and escalated. I'm sorry that I was being a jackass. But do you honestly think what I'm doing is trolling? I'm not TRYING to get you riled up, and I'm not trying to be a jackass, even though that ended up being what happened. I didn't start this thread for any other reason than to express to Anthony that there was an ad that I found was pushing the boarders of what I thought was generally acceptable in an ad. Anthony was awesome enough to agree and state that he would have it taken care of. Which is great! I even stated in my initial post that I intentionally DO NOT use an ad-blocker. Anthony also mentioned that using an ad blocker DOES indeed cost the site a great deal of money, and he expressed he would love it if people would not use ad-blockers. A fair request. Lot's of people said they weren't going to change their habits based on that information, so I re-joined this new conversation by attempting to point out (perhaps in an unneeded jackassish way) what taking that stance really meant.

To clear away this confusion, I am not defending ads, I am decrying ad-blockers.

I have since attempted to solidify my case against Ad-blockers in our debate. To reiterate: It is known that websites do not gain any money from a hit where the person is using an ad-blocker, and it is known that ad-blockers are only used to prevent minor annoyances on said websites. It is also known that bandwidth to visit a site costs the site money. It therefore is clear that if you visit a site while using an ad-blocker, you are actually costing the site money, while not generating any revenue for them in return. It follows of course that a site that cannot pay it's bills, cannot pay it's employees. So while a small drop in the bucket, 1 person using an ad-blocker is contributing towards putting people out of a job. These are all, as of this point, uncontested facts.

My case should be pretty clear. I get that some people may have been ignorant of the fact that this significantly hurts websites, and that's okay. But now we know. It's out in the open, straight from the horses mouth. Ad-blockers hurt websites. Period. Ad-blockers, are also a mere convenience for the person browsing. So, a person who is using an ad-blocker is essentially 1 drop in a buck of people who are putting working men and women potentially out of a job, for the sake of their own small conveniences. I believe this behavior is absolutely morally reprehensible. I'm not trying to be high and mighty here, what I'm legitimately trying to do, is challenge people to seriously think about what they're doing. If you think what I'm saying has merit, I encourage you to turn off your ad-blockers. If you think what I'm saying makes no sense, than I encourage you to explain why you disagree.

If you don't want to take part in the discussion anymore, that's fine. If you think I'm just a trolling jackass, that's fine too. If EVERYONE on the forums thinks I'm just a pretentious douche bag who loves the sound of his own voice, that's fine. But either way, no one is ignorant about ad-blockers anymore, and we all get to make a choice. It's a relatively small choice in the greater scheme of things, one of millions of tiny decisions we all make in our lives, but it's there none the less. Are you cool using ad-blockers knowing full well that you are potentially putting people out of work, merely for the sake of small convenience? Do you really feel you are justified in this? I'm not looking for some kind of ratification with this, I just want people to think about it and make a choice on their own.

 

Nah, bro. I wouldn't even say it was unneeded or escalated. You saw something that made you angry, and you spoke up about it. Honestly, I really like that about the GR audience.You don't take shit lightly.

I chimed in to clarify a few things. First, was to tell you that you can always come to me or any of the other GR staff about this type of stuff.

Two, to let you know that we hear you, and that we'll do the best we can. Sometimes I'm a little immune to the ads (definitely more so than the average user) because I know that it's paying for all of our paychecks and to keep the site up and running. So I appreciate the feedback.

And three, which goes back to the point about operating the site and paying the staff. I wanted to make sure everyone knew (although, I'm sure you all knew anyway) how using stuff like ad blockers takes away from GR's bottom line. It's not just our pay, it's the site operation, the design (which we've changed dramatically over the past year), it's the event coverage (hotel, airfare, etc), it's the office supplies, etc., etc. etc. It's not cheap to run a site, especially when Daniel is addicted to black truffle and saffron. We've had to kidnap a couple of those truffle-sniffing pigs to keep up with his habit. But that's besides the point. I wanted everyone to know that if you really love GR, and I know you do, that you have to suck it up and deal with some ads sometimes.

Subscriptions: No. Just no.

Donations: That's kind of you, but we're not interesting in taking your money. However, you can donate to the ASLF (Anthony Severino Lawnmower Fund) at any time

Store: Not worth it. We'd make so very little profit of each item sold, you'd be supporting the store that brands our products more than you'd be supporting us.

Bottom line: At the end of the day, we're not going to be successful if we don't do two things: Make money (ie: ads), and make our users happy enough to keep coming back. We're always paying attention to that delicate balance so that neither of those things go neglected. If you take up an issue with a particular ad, let me know. If you just hate ads in general like schimmel, that's fine too, just don't whine when all your favorite sites start offering subscriptions and/or going under.

Rinnon's complaint was valid. Everyone's points are valid. That's the wonderful thing about the internet, everyone is right to a point. Except IGN.