Only $42? Well, when you consider that I have to come up with $10k

in one month...I guess that isn't too bad.

However, I am not even close to that, so, $42 right now might as well be $10k!


But, I still love DU.

to a presidential candidate and the party coffers this year. But your agenda will not count for as much.

You can still get on the airplane (after a 45 minute wait in line), but if you pay extra you can breeze through TSA like the wind, avoiding all the riff raff.

Yes, you can still eat cake, even if you have no bread. Thanks, Marie Antoinette! (With apologies to Marie Antoinette, who never actually said that, but what the heck.)

How is it that donors will be more influential than the rest? Is it simply the star by their name that will give their words more weight? I'm generally curious. If you can explain it to me, I'd appreciate it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=2305057&mesg_id=2305057

But it's not just about influence. It's about the argument that, fine, if you don't want to see the ads pay us $42 or $60. That's like Bank of America telling you, fine, if you want to use your debit card pay us $60.

My opposition to the "money buys you no ads" policy is of long standing. I capitulated before, but I think in the current political and economic climate, and with such an enormous hike, it really smacks of one-percentism. There are plenty of places to go on the Internet for discussion where there are no donations and no subscription fees. And no, DU isn't the end-all. It's just a giant circus. At some point you decide if you want to pay and/or enrich someone for that.

you could pay $5 now, and your membership will last for a year. i catch your drift though.

I think you have to make a decision on principle, not expediency. I don't know. I'll think about it but only because an election year is coming up. But it truly is pointless to think you should post rebuttals because it will change somebody's mind. That never happens. It's just a diversion.

It was a post by someone who had done a search of this site for comments by posters that denigrated the ideas of other posters based on the fact that they hadn't contributed or had no stars. Comments like "I don't pay attention to people who don't donate." Or "I see you have no stars." The status was used as a cudgel against people's credibility. There were 8 or 10 examples, and the OP said it was only an initial, cursory search.

I can't imagine why a post like that--mere facts--was removed. That's making me even angrier.

Sure, comments like that are stupid, and most people here recognize that. In the new DU, I'd imagine comments like that would come off even more stupid. But considering that people who don't donate will have as much, or even more abilities than before, I can't really get worked up about it. And this is from someone who intends to continue donating to DU, but probably won't be donating $42 or more per year.

Sure, there will always be racists--but it's up to the government to enact and enforce laws that prohibit discrimination in voting, housing, education, etc.

Same goes for here: if you set up a two-tiered community and exacerbate it with the system of marking the subscribers with stars, you're essentially inviting—indeed supporting— this kind of nasty post. And simply saying that you can censor such posts only papers over the institutional aspect of the inequality. I don't buy the argument that this is just a few bad apples. It's the system itself that permits this kind of behavior.

Because the stars have existed for quite a while. If you believe that they should be gotten rid of, then the new DU3 doesn't really change that. If it's simply the increased cost, then that should be the focus.

Look, I've never approved of this system. But now, several problems arise: people with few means can no longer make a low-cost donation for a year's status, and it's much less likely that someone will do it in their name. This will lead to a far more bifurcated community of subscribers vs non-subscribers, and a much greater incidence of second-class status.

I think if you think that DU is the best thing since sliced toast, you'll be fine with this and subscribe. But I think if you are either poor or have doubts about the status of the site, then you are either going to have to leave or endure ads and potential dismissal of your views, whether people say it aloud or not.

And by the way, I also disapprove of the fact that you can't leave DU and have your registration removed. That 177, 366 number of registered users won't decrease when I (or 1000 other people) leave.

I'd still like to contribute, but it most likely won't be $42 a year. I'm guessing we'll be seeing a far larger number of those without stars.

If I ever feel like I'm being consistently discriminated for not having a star, I'll most likely not use the site.

Hyperbole much?

In my time here, I've seen 1 post where someone tried to argue his star made his point more valid. He was 'shouted' down for it.

the option of paying cash instead of seeing ads.

I'm really not understanding the complaint here, other than "change is bad" and "I want to only pay $5/year".

For example, as a non-star wielder, I can not post in the "groups" area. The new system reduces the difference between the "free" and "pay" accounts.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.