Rexozord  89
Started conversation: March 2

Hey, was talking with Shattered and he mentioned that you wanted to chat with me about Data Race at some point. Not sure exactly what you want to talk about and what topics you are open to on the subject, but I'm happy to discuss whatever you're interested in with regards to it. I've been keeping up with the recent bouts on a casual level and I did read through some of my saved stuff as well as some of the original docs that Shattered has saved from the archives.

I don't have anything specific that I'm burning to say, and I don't know how much of my discussion with Shattered vis-a-vis Data Race he relayed to you, so I'm going to take the coward's way out and leave the conversational ball in your court. :P

 Quote  Edit
Soon
Report reply (IP: 86.3.82.33)
Soon  5
Replied: March 3

Well, I suppose the first thing we need to establish is how much of my recent chats with Shattered has he clued you in on? I mean, I sort of automatically assume that he quotes all of the relevant stuff to you in private, but ... judging by this message, I'm thinking that needn't necessarily be the case after all. And it seems like we're more or less in the same boat in that respect, too - not knowing exactly how much of our separate discussions with him Shattered has been relaying to the other.

So ... yeah. That seems like an ideal takeoff point - how much of what we've discussed has he actually told you?

 Quote  Edit Options
Rexozord
Report reply (IP: 76.184.155.113)
Rexozord  89
Replied: March 3

Almost nothing. Shattered told me that he mentioned to you our (his and my) discussion, your response to that, and that you'd like to chat with me about Data Race. He has told me literally nothing else about any conversations you two have had. We've had some discussions at some length about his Data Race session though, mainly speculation on what would have happened if he had done something differently (e.g. he thinks he should have tried Omnimon to attack instead of just using the shield, whereas I thought he would get hit before the attack came out and it would probably fizzle). But everything else we talked about... well, he didn't mention anything you had said during those conversations, at least.

 Quote  Edit Options
Soon
Report reply (IP: 86.3.82.33)
Soon  5
Replied: March 4

Well, I supposed I'd better get to copy & pasting some stuff then, hadn't I?

Here's the initial message that I sent Shattered the other night, which I had actually asked him to run by you at some point...

---

And last but not least, about Rex and this money situation. I saved this for last because it's obviously a difficult and somewhat controversial topic...

Now, as I recall it, Rex was one of those who was (quite adamantly, I believe) against paying last time I did this. Of course, whether that was because of a lack of the necessary funds, or simply because he didn't like the idea of paying me for game time (as I believe was the case with Red), I'm not entirely sure. However, I definitely remember him being highly put off by the idea, despite him having seemed quite eager to try and play before I started charging for it.

And I doubt that he and Red were the only ones in that camp, either. So, here's the thing....

I likely will have to start charging again if I'm going to be setting up shop here long term - which I don't know if I will do yet, as I'm unsure whether I could tolerate the long-term drain that these games have on my stamina (plus, I'd need to know that you were actually comfortable with it to begin with, as this is still very much a case of - Your Site, Your Rules) - as I simply don't have the financial resources to dedicate so much time to something without receiving any credible reward for my effort, y'know?

However, I was also highly turned off by the "pay-per-play" system I had going on last time, as I never liked the idea of preventing people from playing my games altogether (no matter their passion for them) simply because they didn't have the funds available to do so, which is of course a situation I am all-too familiar with myself.

So, I've been thinking of a way to combat this issue this time around - a little ... workaround, if you will - and the best I've so far come up with is this...

What if I still allowed people to play for free, should they so wish to, but only limited their game time to one hour sessions each time? Meanwhile, the people who are willing and/or able to pay me would still be able to book long-running sessions like the one you, er ... 'enjoyed' (?) tonight, or the one Trajectory, er ... 'enjoyed' (?) the other night. People willing to pay would also get the benefit of being able to 'buyout' sessions of non-paying members, just like the old Debt Point system back on X-Evo. (Haha, remember that?)

And in order to balance this out, so that some rich member (haha, I wish) couldn't just buy up all of the non-paying members' sessions, I'd have at least one day each week (...or so, depending on my own level of activity) which I would dedicate solely to the non-paying members.

This, I think, is the fairest system I could come up with right now, as one hour isn't really that much of a long time, in terms of in-game progress (for instance, if you and Traj had only gotten to play for one hour apiece this time out, you both would have made very little tangible progress), so it still very much weighs the benefits towards the paying customer (who I would still very much require in order to keep this going as any kind of longer-term plan), without completely dispelling the needs and playing time of those who aren't able to realistically contribute.

To add to this idea of trying to welcome some non-paying members back into the fold, I could possibly offer a one-off, two-hour long session for first time players, to give them the opportunity to truly get a decent taste and feel for the game/s (depending on if I open any other Journeys besides Data Race to the market or not) to start off with, to help them decide whether or not they would consider the experience worth potentially paying for in more significant doses, y'see?

So, basically what I'm asking you here (besides if you're even willing to entertain this notion in the first place) is to run this idea by Rex (someone who has shown a clear reluctance to pay for Journeys time in the past) and see what he, as a representation of the potential 'non-paying member-base', thinks of it in it's most unpolished form (though I have at least put a decent amount of thought into this over the last week or so).

If you can do this for me, let me know what he thinks of it all afterwards, won't you? Or you could just send him over in-person if you think it'd be easier for us to speak on the matter personally. Because I'd be quite interested to hear his thoughts on it all, to be honest...

---

Now, it's worth pointing out that, at the time of sending the message above, Shattered still hadn't filled me in on all the confusion that was happening with financial stuff on your end. And as to that, I think it's probably best that we don't even go there, to be honest, as I'm still feeling slightly offended that you would have even considered me capable of doing that in the first place, and you're no doubt still trying to get your head around having (presumably) held a fair deal of resentment towards me all this time for no real reason. So, all in all, I'd say its probably best that we just leave all that awkward mess to be buried by the sands of time... Don't you agree?

In any case, I'm still curious to get your input on the topic discussed above, to see if your thoughts on the matter might differ in any way from mine or Shattered's, y'know?

Basically, I'm trying to find the right balance here between allowing anyone who wants to play to have access to game time, whilst also ensuring that there is enough incentive left for the more passionate and/or financially able members to actually pay for their extended game time.

Go too far in one direction, and I run the risk of alienating people who were previously used to playing for free (such as Red), but go too far in the other direction, and I'll instead run the risk of making paying for the game essentially pointless and unnecessary - neither of which will really do for me.

So... What d'you think? Am I thinking along the right lines here with my hatchling plans, or do you have a differing perspective on things? Because all contrasting thoughts are welcome, provided that there's some kind of concrete logic behind them, of course...

 Quote  Edit Options
Rexozord
Report reply (IP: 76.184.155.113)
Rexozord  89
Replied: March 4

Ok, let's "take out the garbage" first so we can get to the fun discussion afterwards. I probably have felt a (totally undeserved) low-level of resentment toward you, but I don't think it's as high as you are thinking. As far as my (false) memory went, I was giving you money specifically with the possibility that you might not be able to complete everything you were offering for it in mind. And don't feel too offended that I thought you capable of that. Realistically, I only knew you administrated a forum I had liked and ran a kickass forum game. Didn't know much of anything else about you. Also, the other reason the resentment was not terribly strong (although, once again, completely unfounded) was because, to my knowledge at the time, your finances were tight, and I wasn't about to assume what had happened to cause you to disappear.

That all being said, so you can understand where I'm at now, I'm currently monitoring myself to make sure I'm not judging anything you say based on something I have proven to not happened (man, it feels disconcerting, let me tell you), and I'm also trying to make sure I don't pendulum swing too hard in the other direction.

Ok, so looking at your ideas for current monitization for Data Race. I'll start off by saying I don't remember being super-opposed to paying for Data Race sessions like some others were (I remember Exile kicking up a huge storm about it, even though, IIRC [which hasn't been too reliable admittedly], he had never played). So I don't think it's too safe to consider me to be majorly opposed to the idea. Just a disclaimer.

Before I discuss the model you're proposing here, I'm going to offer an observation I made to Shattered about the Data Race format, especially in light of this sentiment:

  On 3/4/2018 at 3:00 AM, Soon said:
[...]which I don't know if I will do yet, as I'm unsure whether I could tolerate the long-term drain that these games have on my stamina[...]

From my observation, an unfortunate consequence of the current Data Race format is that it maximizes the amount of time and effort you have to put in while minimizing the player's interaction. To explain, let's look at 20 minutes of play. On average we're looking at maybe 5 minutes of the player doing stuff (reading the last post, deciding what action to take, posting that action) and 15 minutes of you having to work (reading the command, adjudicating the effects of the command, writing and posting the update). This is bad both ways, because the player has to sit there for 15 minutes twiddling their thumbs, and the worse this ratio is, the harder you have to work for the same amount of progress for the player.

Obviously there's not going to be any sort of magic bullet solution to that issue (not without losing what makes Data Race Data Race, right?). I do have some ideas on things that can be done to try to alleviate some of that, but I don't really want to propose them unless this is an area you actually want input on from me (I don't want to step on any toes). But improving on that issue might make running sessions less draining (or more productive, or however you want to look at it) for you, and would likely make prospective players more willing to pay.

With that out of the way, the model you are proposing is not too bad. One thing left unanswered by the model (you said you didn't like "pay-per-play") is on what basis would the paying players be paying you? Would they be paying you on a monthly basis? Would there be a charge per non-free session booked? An additional charge to buy-out a session? Would the money they pay cover a certain amount of session time? If so would there be an expiry period (would it be reasonable for a player to pay you, leave the site for 6 months, then return and start buying out everyone's sessions?)?

Basically, some details about the framework of payment are currently lacking in the above information. Do you have any thoughts on this?

With regards to the free play sessions, I think that's probably an elegant solution for the most part. I think that maybe having some sort of buy-out protection that isn't a specific day might be better though (there are edge cases like, what if that day one free player literally can never play on it and keeps getting their sessions bought out, for example). Some random thoughts: offer buy-out protection if a player has scheduled the session X days out; offer buy-out protection if the player's session had been scheduled for X days(i.e. Rex scheduled a free session a week from now, from now until X days from now, it can be bought out, but after X days it cannot); offer buy-out protection after having one (or potentially more) session bought out (e.g. Rex had a session bought out, his next session cannot be bought out); give a player a buy-out protection credit after X successful sessions; give a player a buy-out protection credit after a scheduled session is not met by the Data Race Master; and so on.

Most of those are off the top of my head, so you can see there is quite a bit of space to work with the mechanic. You probably won't want to choose more than one or two methods of offering buy-out protection, because you definitely want buy-outs to happen, just not over and over to the same people. Also, everything I've said so far about buy-outs is assuming that free-play players won't be able to schedule more than one session for the same day. If there are other restrictions to their scheduling, or if that one does not exist, or both, that would potentially change things.

Anyway, I don't think I can give any further feedback without hammering out some more detail with regards to the model (and this is all ignoring exact pricing numbers). Overall, the idea is not bad in its current form. I would definitely play free sessions, provided that the buy-out situation wasn't horrendous (and potentially pay as well, depending on specifics).

Aaaand that was a huge wall of text. Whoops.

 Quote  Edit Options
Soon
Report reply (IP: 86.3.82.33)
Soon  5
Replied: March 7

* Fair enough. Like I said, let's just leave all that in the past now, yeah? And hey, perhaps now is the perfect time for you to actually get to know me, since you're right in saying that our back-and-forth communication has been somewhat limited until now. I mean, Shattered talks about you a fair bit to me, and I would imagine that he talks about me a fair bit to you as well, but knowing someone through a mutual friend isn't really any substitute for knowing someone personally now, is it? Maybe having a few straight back-and-froths more often might help to bridge any kind of gap in trust that's been caused by all this, y'know?

* Well, Shattered told me that you had some pretty substantial reservations about the idea of paying for the game last time out (though as I said in my message to him, I've got no idea if those reasons were purely financially-based, or a more moral objection to the idea, as it was in Red's case) ... and I suppose, in light of recent developments, that might actually explain why you were so set against the idea to begin with. I just wish we could have sorted all this out several years ago ... probably would have saved you and Shattered a fair bit of hassle and stress of late, if nothing else.

* Ah, yes, Exiled Phoenix, right? I remember him. Always thought he was a bit of an a*shole, to be honest (meaning no offence, as I understand that the two of you are friends?) ... but whether he was a lovable a*shole, or the more standard kind of a*shole, I didn't really get a long enough look at him to decide. 'Cause lovable a*sholes I can deal with (even rub along well with, under the right circumstances), but I'd prefer not to have to deal with the other kind, if I can help it.

So ... yeah. At this point, whether he plays or not (or whether he has some kind of moral objection to me getting paid for my time or not), it really is no skin off my nose, either way. He'll be welcome to try out the game as a non-paying member, however, when the time eventually comes for me to start accepting such sessions again (which isn't quite yet, admittedly - not until I've got more of the finer details ironed out a bit).

All are welcome to come and play The Journeys, a*sholes (lovable or otherwise) included. ;)

* Moving on to the subject of the forum version of Data Race itself, well ... believe it or not, this current version is probably the easiest of the three for me to host (though I used to hold up pretty well during the live-action games as well, some of which were 8-12 hour sleepover sessions ... but I'd be pretty much dead by the end of them).

One of the main reasons I even went looking for a secluded bunch of forums to host on in the first place (eventually stumbling upon X-Evo, among others) was because the constant stream of chatroom sessions were getting me down and starting to have a serious effect on my health.

See, at least where the forum version is concerned, I can take an emergency, five minute breather to gather my thoughts when the fatigue of it all really starts to pile up. But in the chatrooms? It's much more interactive for the members, yes, but it's also much more of a strain on me, since I don't get so much as a minutes peace while a session is still ongoing. And straight after that? Well, I'd have a quick five or ten minute break, and then it'd straight onto the next session ... and trust me, that's no way to live. Especially not at my ripe old age (talking like a pensioner here, but hey, I feel like one half the time, anyway).

The odd chatroom session could possibly still be an option (as it really is like night and day with the forum version when it comes to progress-per-hour), but ... I'd probably have to charge some kind of premium rate for it, 'cause that sh*t really does kill me, and fast. I haven't hosted any games like that in years, either, so lord only knows what kind of effect it'd all have on me now, y'know?

Also, we have to factor in that the chatroom version is quite a bit different from the forum version, which might be highly disconcerting for those of you who have only known the game to be hosted that way. Not only is it much, much faster (post, react, post, react, etc.), but it's also a great deal less detailed, meaning that you need to really follow things closely if you wanna know what's going on. For instance, several people in the past (including Shattered in his most recent session, who seemed to feel that it wasn't made clear enough that 'Summon Soon' had actually taken him over the ledge) have actually claimed that the forum version is still not detailed enough, so ... I can only dread to think what the reaction would be like, if those more detail-thirsty players were to try out the faster-paced chatroom version instead.

In any case, for now I think it's best that the forum version remains the default way for me to host sessions, despite the obvious flaws in the design, with the game having never originally been designed to be played in such a setting (I had to take the time to actually adapt everything specially, in order to make it a more forum-friendly experience, back when I first brought the game onto X-Evo). Alternate methods of play could still be available to those desperate enough to experience the game/s another way (Shattered's even still hoping that I'll host some sessions over mic and webcam at some point, I think), but ... like I said, those would most likely require additional funding, as it'd all be far more hassle for me than it's worth otherwise.

* No, there would be no set charges for the game. Don't misunderstand me - pay-per-play is still going to be the primary system at work here. It just won't be the only way for someone to experience the game from now on, is all.

As for the cost of that, well ... for now, that remains somewhat negotiable, just as it was the last time I did it, too. If a player isn't happy with the service that they've received for the money they paid, then they can always take the matter up with me in private, after which they will (more often than not) be granted additional session time as a way for me to try and appease their feelings of discontent (unless I feel that they are being wholly unreasonable about the whole thing, of course, in which case the debate will most likely go on until either one party or the other submits).

For instance, with Shattered - my notes are telling me that he was still owed about eight hours worth of session time for what he paid me last time I was here. However, he will now most likely be allowed to go over that allotted time (he's already clocked over five hours as things stand, I think), simply because I tend to be fairly amiable about the whole thing in general. Plus, you could also consider it a kind of "interest" payment on my part, since it's taken me so damn long to actually get back here and give him what he was owed.

Traj, too, has also gone over his previously allotted session time (he played for about six hours or so, I believe, when his owed time was supposedly only about 3.5 hours).

So, yeah, if you do eventually end up paying me anything for game time, don't ever hesitate to take it up with me afterwards if you feel you aren't getting the kind of service you paid for, as you'll often find me quite open to bargaining over such things. Normally I may even do so regardless of player intervention, if I personally feel that I haven't performed to a satisfactory level during the previous session/s. Neither Shattered nor Traj requested their extra game time, after all, or voiced any kind of discontent with the service that they've received ... yet here they are, receiving some extra session time, regardless.

If there's one thing above all that I pride myself on, Rex, it's my ability to always be as honest and fair-minded as I am realistically able to be. You won't find yourself getting cheated by me in any way, I can promise you that. And I believe anyone who has ever had individual dealings with me in the past would also vouch for this facet of my character as well. I'm no liar or crook.

Couple of extra points...

* Buying out a pre-booked session would cost extra, yes. Not a tremendous amount more, obviously, but the cost would be slightly higher than the usual going rate, yes. Probably to the extent of the session they are trying to claim (so if it is a one-hour session, it'll be one hour extra in cost - if it is a two-hour session, then it'll two hours extra in cost).

* There would be no expiry period, no. If the paying member isn't able to play for some time (for whatever reason), then their due session time will logged until such a time as they are available to receive it. This much should have been obvious, I would have thought, seeing as in Shattered and Traj have been waiting the best part of four years to finally see their donations be fully rewarded. :P

* Hmm... Well, I can see that blocking a buyout is a topic that you're quite invested in, but ... I wouldn't consider it particularly necessary, at least for the time being. In a larger, more vibrant community (where members may form smaller groups in an effort to continuously poach sessions from the members they dislike, as a low-key sort of bullying, etc.) you may have had more of a valid point, but ... here on Sparkbomb? ...Nah. I can't see that being much of an issue, at least to begin with.

If it does indeed end up becoming an issue, then I may eventually revisit the idea at some point. But that point is most certainly not now... There are many more important matters to be discussed and established first.

Personally, I'm expecting buyouts to be quite a rare occurrence, anyway, never mind on the kind of larger, more consistent scale you're talking about here. It's merely an alternative option to give the financially contributing community members (the cornerstones of the entire project, in other words) greater access to their preferred time slots for sessions, should they so wish to do so.

* There will be no restrictions as to when the non-paying members will be able to play, no (though I almost certainly will not be allowing them to play more than once a day, assuming that their planned session actually goes ahead in the first place). The only downside to this is that the paying members will almost always be given priority, if a paying and a non-paying member end up competing with one another for the same session slot, hence why I suggested staging the occasional day where such an occurrence may not be commonplace. That is, again, a fairly obvious thing, I feel.

* Anyway, for now, many of the specifics are still up in the air at the moment. Even the cost of game time itself is still highly flexible, and largely dependent on how much each individual member is willing and/or able to pay. Some things I am planning to be quite strict about, as you can no doubt see from some of my comments above, whereas on other matters I will remain extremely lenient and open to compromise.

As I've said, I'm not here to swindle anybody ... but neither am I here to push myself like a workhorse again, free of charge. If we can find some kind of happy medium between those two extremes, then I think that'll probably work out best for everyone involved, don't you?

 Quote  Edit Options
Soon
Report reply (IP: 86.3.82.33)
Soon  5
Replied: March 16

Oi, you! You gonna reply to this or what? ... Or am I to simply assume that you have nothing to add to all that (^) lot? Hehe.

 Quote  Edit Options
Rexozord
Report reply (IP: 76.184.155.113)
Rexozord  89
Replied: March 16

Sorry, I'm not used to long form communication. Got stuck about half-way through a reply and let it sit for a while.

Exiled I don't think you have to worry about. He hasn't been on the site in years (to be honest, I never really interacted with him offsite). And yeah, he was way more of a jerk where anything X-Evo related was concerned than anywhere else. Although he had acted that way previously in regards to other sites.... I think he had a very us vs them mentality, and that didn't do him any favors.

It's interesting when I talked about the Data Race format, both you and Shattered seemed to assume forum game vs... well, anything else. To be honest, if it was something else, I probably wouldn't play it. That's not really what I'm talking about. I'm more talking about... potential ways the Data Race system could be modified within a forum setting to make it either less stressful/exhausting for you, more enjoyable/engaging for the players, or both. (As an aside, I can definitely see how a more live-action version could be even more exhausting.) Anyway, I would be happy to brainstorm on possible changes with you, but I don't really want to wind up the effort if you don't feel like considering changes at this time (which is fine, it's your game). If you're interested in that brainstorm, let me know.

Ok, so basically what I'm getting out of this section is that the model will essentially be to charge on a per-hour basis, but you haven't yet decided on a baseline session-hour rate. That's fair. And I think your willingness to be flexible and consider complaints and adjudicate them is a good thing. That being said, there is some value to setting some baseline expectations for players and doing some thinking on potential abuse cases for any rules you set up. Rules will be useful because they give you an easy way to set boundaries and deny requests that would fall outside the realm of reasonable, without opening yourself to accusations of favoritism. Anyway, just things to ponder, and part of the reason I'm bringing up things that are so fiddly.

The increased cost for a buyout seems reasonable. Can a bought-out session be bought-out again (either by the original requester or by a third player)?

The expiry period is less relevant if you are simply paying for session hours, provided that there is no limit on session hours bought at a single time. (It would be relevant in a system where you pay X monthly and are guaranteed X amount of play monthly, or something along those lines, or if purchase of session hours is limited in some way.) Also the expiry period would also be a player/buyer protection as well as limitation, because it would require the opportunity for the player to actually schedule and use their session time within a reasonable period.

As for buyout protection, let's consider a hypothetical situation. Let's consider a situation where you have 5 active paying players (not unreasonable in near future, or possibly even as soon as you reopen). Let's say one of those paying players does not have much disposable income and only spends a very limited amount of money on sessions. Let's also suppose they can only play at very limited time periods. And finally, let's say that the time periods where their schedule matches up with yours is a "prime time" where the other 4 paying members are also available. If no sort of effective buyout protection is implemented, it is possible this player will have their sessions bought out again and again, with no malice toward the player from others, simply because of the constraints of their situation.

That being said, it is likely buy outs won't be a serious problem immediately (depending heavily on your availability). That being said, planning ahead isn't a bad thing, and planning for growth isn't a bad thing. Well, it normally isn't, unless you have some clear limits on how much you want to do this. And if that's the case, you may want to consider planning for strict limits on the purchase or the use of session time to ensure that growth doesn't get out of hand.

Now I may be misinterpreting you, but I highly recommend against charging different people different amounts for session hours (especially on the basis of ability to pay). It may come out of good intentions, but it will, sooner or later, destroy your playerbase. If you're making free sessions available, I think that's sufficient (provided, of course, players are capable of actually scheduling and using them). I highly encourage you to actually nail down specifics wherever possible. I believe it will save you stress in the long run.

 Quote  Edit Options
Soon
Report reply (IP: 86.3.82.33)
Soon  5
Replied: 1 hour ago

Well, now I've taken almost as long as you did to reply last time, so ... I guess that makes us even, somewhat? Hehe.

About Exiled, well... Hmm. Yeah, I'm obviously familiar with that kind of mentality, but you'd have expected the "them" to have become apart of the "us" after a certain amount of time had passed, no? ...Then again, I suppose some people are just far too set in their ways to ever truly change their outlook on things... Perhaps Exiled simply falls into that same category of people.

"It's interesting when I talked about the Data Race format, both you and Shattered seemed to assume forum game vs... well, anything else." - Of course, I'd like to say something along the lines of "great minds think alike", but ... it's equally possible that we're both just a couple of idiots, I suppose.

In any case, feel free to recommend any potential "upgrades" that might come to mind. After all, I'm unlikely to bite your head off simply for making a suggestion. However... Just be sure to keep in mind that there's a fair chance I've already considered whatever idea it is that you've cooked up, and that there may actually be a perfectly good reason why I haven't chosen to implement such changes already. That's all I really ask of you.

"The increased cost for a buyout seems reasonable. Can a bought-out session be bought-out again (either by the original requester or by a third player)?" - Err ... Well, yes, in theory, but ... let's be real here - that simply isn't going to happen. After all, going by my proposed formula of charging an extra rate based on how many hours are being bought, that means that buying a session off of another paying member (which will likely be in the five-to-six hour range, more often than not) would practically double the price of your game time, which just isn't cost effective in the long run.

I mean, even if it were to happen on occasion (and we'd certainly need to enlist some pretty rich players with little-to-no regard for how much money they spend for this ever to take place, I feel), then it would most likely be just that - an occasional occurrence. There's no need for us to worry about such a practice becoming commonplace, I wouldn't have thought, as it just isn't something any sensible person would do all that frequently.

Your problem here is that you're only considering things from a perspective of wanting to protect your own sessions, without taking into account what would be going through the heads of the paying members as well. So, just ask yourself this - if you were a member who was making regular financial contributions to the game, and had the choice of either paying extra to play on a particular day (potentially taking session time from a non-paying member in the process) or else waiting your turn and getting better value for money on another day instead, which option would you opt for? ...The latter, I'm willing to bet, yes? Well, that same thought process would hold true for 99% of other players as well.

Buy out protection simply isn't something we need to be worrying about. Certainly not in the immediate future, at least. And the reason for this is because my system of charging extra for buying out another member's session will already act as a more than sufficient safeguard against this for the vast majority of paying customers. Most people aren't going to want to pay extra to play at a certain time on a certain day, especially not when they know they're already being given priority for sessions anyway...

You gotta try and consider things from all perspectives, Rex. Don't just worry about covering your own back, y'know?

As for your niggling doubts about me setting clear guidelines on how much (or rather, how little) can be paid for game time, well - you've no need to concern yourself with that, either. The differences will, in general, be quite negligible, so you won't have any cases where one member is being charged £20 for fives hours, while another is only being charged £5 for the exact same amount of game time. Those kind of shocking discrepancies simply aren't going to be allowed to happen.

I already have a (vague) base amount set in mind, but I'm still (at least for the moment) very much intending to keep those kind of figures to myself (as this is one instance where complete transparency would probably be a bad thing). After all, the entire purpose of price flexibility is, as a concept, to try and ease the discontent that some players might have about the cost, and to try and persuade them to pay for play time more frequently. Therefore, those kind of differing figures will only ever be required under very specific circumstances, and (hopefully) won't become commonplace at all. Even so, the amount that prices will be allowed to fluctuate will be so unnoticeable to the regular members that it isn't likely to become a major problem. I won't be allowing any exploitation to take place - of either me or my paying members. As I said before, fairness and equality are both highly important things to me, Rex, so I won't be allowing any practices to take place which might jeopardise my position on either of these two issues.

And I suppose that brings me quite nicely onto my final point, which is thus...

I'm not looking to start up a business here. As I've already made clear to Shattered within the last few weeks and Airbreaker even more recently - if I was genuinely looking to make some serious money off of this, and make this some kind of career choice in the longer term, then I certainly wouldn't be looking to start things off on Sparkbomb. There are far better places that I could choose to sink my roots in or stretch my wings if that were the case.

All I'm looking to do here is make a little extra money on the side whilst hosting some games for some old friends. That's it. Nothing more and nothing less.

As such, I really feel that you're approaching this subject the wrong way. You talk about me losing control of (even a relatively small) member-base, by pitting them against each other and ultimately being accused of favoritism. But ... in doing so, you are essentially missing the entire point of me hosting here, which is that I likely won't have to contend with such issues at any point. And why do I say this with such confidence? Well, because we're all friends here.

The things that you're saying would make perfect sense (and would be measures that I would likely have already put in place) were I to be trying to set up some kind of ongoing business somewhere (where such issues may indeed come to the fore quite quickly, if left unchecked). But here on Sparkbomb? I simply won't have to worry about that, because I'll know everyone, and they'll be given the time to get to know me, and - perhaps most crucially of all - they'll also get to know each other.

There won't be various different cliques where groups of friends are banding together to try and compete with (and overthrow) another group of friends. There won't be tons of backstabbing and b*cthing over who gets to enjoy my rather limited amount of available hosting time. There won't be ignorant people constantly questioning my impartiality, morality and work ethic every waking minute of the day, because our level of activity and growth simply won't allow for such things to happen on any kind of larger scale.

We're just a group of friends looking to have a good time whilst also taking care of each other and appreciating one another's constraints and needs. That's all this is. Everything will be happening on a personal (rather than a professional) level, meaning that nobody should be left feeling ostracized or mistreated. Any complaints? People can come to me personally. Any trouble paying full whack? People can come to me personally. I'm unable to host paid sessions at any given time? I can go and tell people personally, and they can be assured, in no uncertain terms, that they will still be getting their session eventually, even if not at that precise moment.

That's the kind of system I'm looking to run here. So, you can rest easy. Things won't be allowed to ever get out of hand here, because I think you'll find that my hands are more than big enough to cope with such a small-scale project and audience.

Were this project to get any larger, then you'd probably be right to worry ... but it won't. Because this is Sparkbomb. No way am I going to lose control of a project happening on some dead and distant corner of the internet. Everything which happens here will be fully under mine and Shattered's (as this is still his site) control. Members will understand this, they will know us, and they will (hopefully) know that we are both capable and fully trustworthy. And that's all this project really needs - just little mutual trust and cooperation on all sides.

And personally? ...Eh. I think we can probably manage that much, at least. Don't you?