Conversation
Notices
-
Obviously we should charge money to change another user's avatar to an image of your choosing for $time. THIS CANNOT POSSIBLY GO WRONG IN ANY WAY.
Thursday, 06-Sep-12 01:19:42 UTC from web-
@redenchilada Pay a bonus to change their name too!
Thursday, 06-Sep-12 01:22:10 UTC from web-
@minti My nightmare.
-
@minti And then we'll pay to keep those users who always change their names from doing it.
Thursday, 06-Sep-12 01:24:25 UTC from web-
@nerthos Nightmares everywhere
-
-
-
@redenchilada Well, that would totally solve the money issues. That, or a #BanRoulette Charge $# to start a ban engine to pick one random user of the site and ban him for a day.
Thursday, 06-Sep-12 01:22:37 UTC from web-
@nerthos inb4 someone pays enough to keep going until the entire admin/mod staff is banned.
Thursday, 06-Sep-12 01:23:28 UTC from web-
@scribus Well, a day of no staff in exchange for limitless funding? Sounds about right to me. It will just be a riot day, the timeline of the entire cycle removed with a fiery chainsaw from the DB the next day.
Thursday, 06-Sep-12 01:25:45 UTC from web
-
-
-
@redenchilada This is actually Something Awful's business model. (Well, that and charging $10 for an account.)
-
@bitshift Wait, they do that? I thought it was a fee to change your _own_ avatar.
Thursday, 06-Sep-12 01:27:05 UTC from web-
@redenchilada Both. Users changing others' avatars is also a thing (a hilarious thing, most times).
-
@bitshift Amazing.
Thursday, 06-Sep-12 01:29:34 UTC from web-
@redenchilada Yeah. They've managed to make a business model out of something which is generally free. It's really rather confusing, but it somehow works. (Although, I follow all of ~5 threads there and ignore the rest, because short of those threads being the best I've found for their respective topics, the rest of SA really doesn't appeal.)
-
@bitshift I never liked SA. Mostly from their pricing model, but also because they're seriously good at living up to their name.
Thursday, 06-Sep-12 01:34:07 UTC from web
-
-
-
-
-
-