"You must buy a Premium Account to download"

I want to say thanks to Oscar for all he has done here! I haven't become a premium member yet, but I plan on it this summer (Once I'm making the "big" bucks at Cedar Point...yea....). But, in all seriousness, thanks for all you have done, I know if I was in your situation, I would have ended it already! So... Thanks!!

Oscar is the coolest. This site is great. I accept any changes Oscar makes to the site, because its his site, and they are most likely changes that are trying to keep the site from disappearing. And Oscar is the coolest.

[Mikey]

This post brings to light one of the many problems that CoasterCrazy has as a operating site, and as a theme park enthusiast community as a whole. While we are held together by a common bond for all things theme park related, and more appropriately our coaster designs and desire to share them amongst each other. We are crippled by our user base, which is formed primary of users aged 13-19. An age range which makes it incredibly difficult to build a community upon because they do not yet have a firm understanding of what a community is or the financial and communal resources that ultimately are needed to make them thrive.

CoasterCrazy was founded in 2002, and next year we will celebrate its ten year anniversary. But while we are one of the oldest sites out there, we have yet to have one community trip, park meeting, or other non-virtual event worthy of us being called anything other then an online forum. We have virtually no income to support the community, aside from a few of our dedicated members, we have as of late, received very little in way of alternative contributions (eg, trip reports, videos, articles, etc) to the site. The majority of our current 13-19 aged user base lacks the financial resources to to provide any monetary support for the community, or to pay for trips or meetings. This has ultimately crippled our chances to continue any further market growth and remain competitive with other sites out there in the market place.

As Oscar has stated previously and I will reincorporate again, we have pumped thousands of dollars into collocation, hardware, software, time, transportation, etc to keep this community alive. I too have an equal investment in this site, and even when Oscar is unable to continue to pay for the site, I have from time to time used the resources of my consulting company to pay the bills. You will find that not once have I questioned paying for this site, simply put, I did it for our loyal users, and because I believe that we do what we must because we can.


We have asked for nothing in return for the free service that we wholeheartedly provide to you, even after we have made some adjustments to lower the overall delivery and operating cost for each free user by limiting some advanced features exclusively to premium members, you still have retained a basic access right to the site. When you get older you will find that you often get what you pay for, and that nothing in life is free.

The fact that it has taken you over a year to learn of our download limit shows me that you are not a very active or constructive member here, that you would rather complain publicly about limitations on a service in which you receive for free, and on someone else's time and dime to boot. Perhaps when you get a little older and a little wiser you will learn about your fallacy, look back on this and reflect.

If you think in anyway that your post here will create some mass exodus or revolt of our user base, or in anyway lesson or take away from the site in anyway, you will likely soon find out that you are the lone ranger in a glass house. Your failures and lack of contribution has in essence also contributed to the communities failures, and now you are feeling the long term effects of that shortcoming.

Personally, I have not given up on CoasterCrazy. For me this site was the the ultimate tool in a three year fight to lead a share holder revolt and ultimately gain back control of the things that mattered most to me. While I have taken a full time position on top of my consulting duties, I still find time to come to this site, and to see what has developed over night. I did not give up on Six Flags and I will not give up on CoasterCrazy. So take this site as you will, and should you decide to not come back, you aren't going to hurt my feelings. But please, for your safety, please don't let the door hit you on the way out. I really hate filling out insurance paper work on stupid people.

- Mikey

I really wish there was something I could do to help, but donating to the site is not a good investment for me right now, especially after putting $600+ into a backyard coaster prototype.

It's all part of the plan for my future, though. I assume a backyard coaster is a good thing to put on a resume plus it's giving me a lot of experience. I've encountered factors that I never would have thought of on paper.

I might consider your Theme Park Innovations company in the future....
That is if you would consider selling wooden coasters....

I have just donated $10.

As I thought, a complete shitstorm.

Gestlrcrazy:

Wow, flaming on the second post. You also seem to be implying that being allowed to swear (which you seem to be taking advantage of to flame people) is worth $30 per month.


Oscar:

I understand very well that this site is extremely expensive to run. However, thousands of sites, from small forum-only communities to sites of comparable scale to this (FurAffinity is a lot larger, with over 100 times as many submissions, and many times more members. It has been around for five years, costs as much many in two as you claim this site has cost over 8, and while I have seen requests for donations, I have never seen attempts to turn it into a paysite, and especially not admins using it for ads.), to monsters like Deviantart (which has SOME features, such as changing the number of results per page, influenced by a premium account). This is to say nothing of extremely large sites like social networks and large wikis.

In other words: Yes, I appreciate the time, effort, and money you have put into this site. However, it is perfectly possible to run a site with user generated content, at almost any scale, without doing any of the things I was complaining about you doing. I have used quite a few free sites, and no other admin I have seen does this. You cannot use the costs as an excuse.

Mikey:

Basically, your entire post consisted of one of two types of content:
Type 1: Repeating Oscar's post with different wording.
Type 2: Complaining about how kids these days don't know what a community is. However, you did touch on a valid point, which is that many of this site's users are just as broke as the site itself. You have also given the impression that you believe that you are morally superior to the rest of this site's users simply by not being in the same age demographic.


Gazag:

Good community?

Maybe a decent community. However, most of the members I see active, besides the really awesome designers like A113 and dcs221, are members like cool5 (brainless, off-topic spammers), CKMWM (douchebags), and a decent contingent of ordinary members, no more inclined to be community-like than those on other sites.


All:

In any case, I apologize for firing off my initial post too quickly and taking too harsh a tone. This site is currently well worth using. My intent, though poorly and impolitely executed, was to air my grievances with site staff. I believe that just like with track rates, running a site requires members to be able to give polite constructive criticism (although today I omitted both adjectives) and for members to be able to react rational to the same. Thus, I apologize again for being snappy, but I do not apologize for making a thread about this.

Finally, I would like to mention my disappointment in the utter lack of civility in this thread. By far the most calm, rational person in this thread were Knexrule11, who was on the side of the "complainers" and Boneplaya, who was taking a neutral stance. Kudos to both of you.

[bockzilla]

I will not repeat what other long time members have already said but...here is my 2 cents worth to you, Omnigeek6.

First, I have been a member of this site since 3/2003, I have no problems with the site's owner Oscar and how he manages it. He and the staff do an outstanding job with this site and I appreciate all of the hard work that they put into it. I know it is a labor of love for all things theme park related. I personally have been donating to this site since 2006 and I know for a fact how much Oscar has appreciated my contributions (big or small) as they seem to hit about the same time when the site is having difficulties. I have met Oscar many times and consider him to be a very good friend I can trust and count on. You don't get to meet many people in your life that fall into that category.

Now for the reason for my replying to this topic.

What if the site keeps the 3 download per day limit for all non-paying members but allows you to download more if you pay with your slappin????????? points for any downloads that exceed the daily free limit. This way active members who contribute to the site, but can not afford to monetarily, can get rewarded with extra downloads. Would this be an acceptable solution to your problem?

[SauronHimself]

Omnigeek, with your rebuttal being neither civil nor informed, it is best that you leave this community. You clamored for civility, and yet your words in each of your posts have shown complete hypocrisy. Furthermore, if you wished to redress grievances with the site staff, you should have used PM's. You clearly failed to yield to reason from the other members, and thus you have shown unwillingness to listen to opinions that dissent against yours.

Let's take a look at your hypocritical desire for a civil thread and your uninformed opinions:

"Oscar, this is absurd and you should be ashamed of yourself."
Nice ad hominem.

"This site is becoming increasingly unwelcoming to members who cannot afford premium accounts, and it is becoming highly annoying."
Based on what evidence? Your personal opinion? You know nothing about data analysis and trends yet tote it like you're a seasoned scientist.

"I realize that most online communities have a social hierarchy, with staff and frequent contributors given more weight in discussion than normal members, but I (and I'm sure many members will agree with me) do not enjoy being treated as an internet plebeian."
How are you being treated as a plebeian? You've cited no logical precedents for this claim, so once again it's just your angry self voicing your opinion as a representation of the whole.

"Please remember that CC is not the only website on the internet with a forum and track exchange. You should not get cocky and think that everyone will choose extortion over having to leave a quality rate now and then to download."
That first sentence is nothing new, and you make it sound like Oscar should be grateful for your patronage. In the second sentence you confuse running a business with cockiness as if they are interchangeable. Finally, do you even know the meaning of the word extortion? Evidently, you don't because the existence of premium accounts in no way extorts the community.

"If enough of this site's features and content become restricted to Premium Members only, do not assume that you will be able to force members to fork over money."
Oscar isn't assuming anything of that nature, and he is smart enough to know that it would be the death of his business.

"I believe I can predict with reasonable accuracy that more members will leave than will purchase Premium Accounts, and the community will shrivel into an elite group of members while everything else withers away and dies."
I didn't realize that you were an expert on statistical analysis...again. I guess making claims without sufficient supporting evidence is the "hip" thing these days.

"Wow, flaming on the second post. You also seem to be implying that being allowed to swear (which you seem to be taking advantage of to flame people) is worth $30 per month."
Here you make the classic correlation-causation fallacy. In no way does Gerstlcrazy's language imply that he is entitled to it for $30/month.

"In other words: Yes, I appreciate the time, effort, and money you have put into this site. However, it is perfectly possible to run a site with user generated content, at almost any scale, without doing any of the things I was complaining about you doing. I have used quite a few free sites, and no other admin I have seen does this. You cannot use the costs as an excuse."
Your paragraph before that and the one cited here do nothing to help your case. I can regurgitate countless examples of businesses charging for one thing while competitors do not, but you have to realize that every business just can't change overnight. Additionally, I'd like to know what businesses you have owned and what products or services you offered that people bought. I'm inclined to say that you never owned a business because you clearly know nothing about running one by what you've said here.

"Basically, your entire post consisted of one of two types of content:
Type 1: Repeating Oscar's post with different wording.
Type 2: Complaining about how kids these days don't know what a community is. However, you did touch on a valid point, which is that many of this site's users are just as broke as the site itself. You have also given the impression that you believe that you are morally superior to the rest of this site's users simply by not being in the same age demographic."

In what way did Mikey imply that he is morally superior due to his age bracket? You're putting words in his mouth and once again voicing your angry opinion as a false representation of the whole. The fact of the matter is that people ages 13-19 are financially and socially sheltered. Even if you have a part-time job, you're paying for a fraction of total living expenses. A teenager typically has car insurance, gas, clothing, and some food as their "living expenses". Somebody like Mikey and I who are out of school and working like real adults have rent/mortgage, car insurance, gas, all food, all clothing, internet, TV, phone bill, electricity, water, home owner/renter insurance, and anything else to take care of ourselves and families.

"Good community?

Maybe a decent community. However, most of the members I see active, besides the really awesome designers like A113 and dcs221, are members like cool5 (brainless, off-topic spammers), CKMWM (douchebags), and a decent contingent of ordinary members, no more inclined to be community-like than those on other sites."
This is once again another one of your feeble attempts to represent your opinion for the whole while failing to provide any concrete evidence supporting it. To add insult to injury, you resort to pathetic ad hominems against various members of the site.

"My intent, though poorly and impolitely executed, was to air my grievances with site staff."
That's why you using the private messaging system. It lets you save face and still gets your questions answered.



How may I further unravel your fallacies and debunk your baseless claims?

Sauron:

"Nice ad hominem."

That was not an ad hominem. That was me telling Oscar that I think he should have been ashamed of himself. In other words, that his actions were sufficient to be ashamed over.

"Based on what evidence? Your personal opinion? You know nothing about data analysis and trends yet tote it like you're a seasoned scientist."

I have seen an increasing number of "premium only features" which are standard issue on most sites, and an increasing number of advertising posts. I in no way claimed to be a statistician.

"How are you being treated as a plebeian? You've cited no logical precedents for this claim, so once again it's just your angry self voicing your opinion as a representation of the whole."

Good point. That bit was just me pointlessly venting.

"That first sentence is nothing new, and you make it sound like Oscar should be grateful for your patronage."

But of course he shouldn't be. After all, members who don't help pay the site's bills are of no value whatsoever.

"In the second sentence you confuse running a business with cockiness as if they are interchangeable."

Okay, I'm a little confused. One set of people is arguing that I should be more grateful for Oscar running this site out of the goodness of his heart. You are treating it as a business. Which am I supposed to believe? I also did not confuse running a business with being cocky. A businessman is cocky if he believes that most people will choose to pay for his service when there is a free service of equal quality.

"Finally, do you even know the meaning of the word extortion? Evidently, you don't because the existence of premium accounts in no way extorts the community."

You've got me there. I know the meaning of the word extortion, but the responses to this thread have made it clear that I am terrible at using hyperbole, as I end up using words that are far too extreme even in exaggeration.

"I didn't realize that you were an expert on statistical analysis...again. I guess making claims without sufficient supporting evidence is the "hip" thing these days."

You mention me putting words in others' mouths, but here you put words in mine. My logic was: People would rather not pay for a service if there is a free alternative of similar quality. This is not expert statistical analysis, this is common sense.

"Here you make the classic correlation-causation fallacy. In no way does Gerstlcrazy's language imply that he is entitled to it for $30/month."

I did not say that he was entitled to curse for $30 a month. I will show the relevant part of his post:

"*Shut the hell up and appreciate this site for what Oscar does allow, rather than what he doesn't. Like all my swearing for instance... =P"

The only example he cited for things allowed on this site, and should be appreciated, was getting to swear. I was pointing out that allowing swearing carries little weight in judging the quality of the site, especially as it was being misused. I fail to see where there was a correlation/causation fallacy. I was originally a bit intimidated by your apparent command of debating technique, but reading more closely, it seems like you're accusing me of logical fallacies that I have not committed.

"Your paragraph before that and the one cited here do nothing to help your case. I can regurgitate countless examples of businesses charging for one thing while competitors do not, but you have to realize that every business just can't change overnight. Additionally, I'd like to know what businesses you have owned and what products or services you offered that people bought. I'm inclined to say that you never owned a business because you clearly know nothing about running one by what you've said here."

Businesses almost always charge for services. That is true. However, I have always been under the impression that a hobby/interest group based internet forum is a social gathering where people get together online and talk about their common interest, and not a business. If a book shop owner runs his library like a book club, he will go out of business. If a book club president runs his club like a bookstore, he will have no members, and become Forever Alone Guy.

"In what way did Mikey imply that he is morally superior due to his age bracket? You're putting words in his mouth and once again voicing your angry opinion as a false representation of the whole. The fact of the matter is that people ages 13-19 are financially and socially sheltered. Even if you have a part-time job, you're paying for a fraction of total living expenses. A teenager typically has car insurance, gas, clothing, and some food as their "living expenses". Somebody like Mikey and I who are out of school and working like real adults have rent/mortgage, car insurance, gas, all food, all clothing, internet, TV, phone bill, electricity, water, home owner/renter insurance, and anything else to take care of ourselves and families.

We are crippled by our user base, which is formed primary of users aged 13-19. An age range which makes it incredibly difficult to build a community upon because they do not yet have a firm understanding of what a community is

Again. "You're too young to know what a community is." Knowing what a community is has nothing to do with being self-sufficient. He was accusing an age group of not knowing the meaning of community, which definitely has moral implications, just the same as "not knowing what responsibility is".

"To add insult to injury, you resort to pathetic ad hominems against various members of the site."

This is the second time you have falsely accused me of ad hominem arguments. I was using various (AKA 2) members of the site as examples of how this is not the greatest community on the internet. If I had been responding to CKWMWM by calling him a douchebag, that would have been an ad hominem fallacy. I'm starting to think your accusations of me being uninformed are slightly hypocritical.

"That's why you using the private messaging system. It lets you save face and still gets your questions answered."

Would you like to know why I don't generally use the PM system? When arguing with staff, I am at a disadvantage, because my opponent has the ability to delete/lock threads and take punitive action against users. If I got in a PM fight with an admin who had an itchy trigger finger on the ban-cannon, the admin could afterward tell forum members who asked what happened "don't discuss banned members" or just tell his/her own side of the argument. On the other hand, a forum thread is out in the open.

Basically, I post where the whole community can see because if I lose face, I was probably asking for it, but I turn out to be in the right, and the staff do something stupid, they can't cover it up. A large number of members will see the stupid post, and the staff will look very silly. If I am banned justly, then banned members get a bad rep anyway, and I was probably asking for it. On the other hand, if I am banned unjustly, a shitstorm will likely emerge. If site staff attempt to cover up their error by deleting posts or the whole thread, they will look extremely stupid, and a revolt may occur.

Therefore, if I lose an argument either way, I lose, and the staff win. However, if I win an argument, than in PMs I will lose and the staff win, but in a thread the staff will lose and I will win.

If my argument is with another member, I may use PMs, but I still prefer a thread, because with PMs both parties will report their own side of the story, but a thread is on public record. Any questions?

"Omnigeek, with your rebuttal being neither civil nor informed, it is best that you leave this community. You clamored for civility, and yet your words in each of your posts have shown complete hypocrisy. Furthermore, if you wished to redress grievances with the site staff, you should have used PM's. You clearly failed to yield to reason from the other members, and thus you have shown unwillingness to listen to opinions that dissent against yours.

Let's take a look at your hypocritical desire for a civil thread and your uninformed opinions:"


All right, I'll just admit, my initial post was completely idiotic, and I was way out of line. However, I have yielded, and admitted myself in the wrong on most of the original post. The fact remains, however: most online communities do not charge for basic features, and most admins do not post a thread every couple months for which a normal member would get in trouble for spamming and advertising. In other words, I still believe I have some valid posts.

While my posts have not exactly been civil, I have not posted things like:

Shut up

Shut the hell up

you're lucky you even have the love site at all.

You either like my site the way it is or GTFO!

Perhaps you'll understand when you grow up and have your own business where you have to provide a product or service that people desire.

(See above: A community and a business are not the same thing.

Also, while my clamoring for civility may have been slightly hypocritical, I distinctly remember you "clamoring" for me to leave the site.

Now, I will gladly tone my posts down. However, if you would prefer to continue falsely accusing me of ad hominem arguments, go ahead.

lol

Leave.

Originally posted by fear the four

lol

Leave.

lol

No.


...


I have no intention of leaving this site, and I have apologized for my overly harsh starting post. I would however highly appreciate if YOU left this thread, and thus allowed it and the associated drama to die.

[Mikey]

Omnigeek,

I think this thread was kind of a hit below the belt for us, because by your own admission your goal was to get the sites staff to admit some sort of fault and provide just evidence for your cause to revolt. Sadly, this thread has only helped you further tarnish the CoasterCrazy name, and you have only contributed to further alienating some members of our user base who are now calling for your head.

Let it how it is,Oscar needs the cash to run the site,and 25 bucks aren`t such a big problem...Agree with Supra,the rating system on NE is great,but I think it would not work for such a huge exchange like here.

[SauronHimself]

"That was not an ad hominem. That was me telling Oscar that I think he should have been ashamed of himself. In other words, that his actions were sufficient to be ashamed over."
Yes, it was. You personally attacked Oscar, which by definition is ad hominem.

"I have seen an increasing number of "premium only features" which are standard issue on most sites, and an increasing number of advertising posts. I in no way claimed to be a statistician."
YOU have witnessed this, but who else has stepped forward to voice their disgruntled opinion on this?

"A businessman is cocky if he believes that most people will choose to pay for his service when there is a free service of equal quality."
I'm not sure what this statement achieves. By your definition Bill Gates is cocky to believe that people will pay for his service when customers can download Open Office freely and get all the Microsoft Office features. It's moot and a red herring.

"You mention me putting words in others' mouths, but here you put words in mine. My logic was: People would rather not pay for a service if there is a free alternative of similar quality. This is not expert statistical analysis, this is common sense."
You made encompassing claims without supporting evidence, and it appeared like you were analyzing data when there isn't any. Furthermore, people don't always prefer something for free if they can get a similar quality product for free. The reason is that many believe in the saying "you get what you pay for", and also there are many who believe in paying to companies that have a reputation of good services or products.

"I was originally a bit intimidated by your apparent command of debating technique, but reading more closely, it seems like you're accusing me of logical fallacies that I have not committed."
Except you did use this fallacy, and your quoting of Gerstlcrazy's post did not exonerate you because it didn't logically progress.

"If a book shop owner runs his library like a book club, he will go out of business. If a book club president runs his club like a bookstore, he will have no members, and become Forever Alone Guy."
You forget how a library and a book club are funded, which are two completely different entities. One acquires public funding and large private-sector donations, whereas the other only runs off small or medium private-sector donations. I can cite some quintessential examples of clubs or hobby interest groups that aren't businesses yet require constant funding. In my personal life it was my Boy Scout troop and my Isshin Ryu dojo. Neither were for profit, yet they required dues paid monthly for operating costs. At least here on CC you have the option of paying, so it isn't necessarily a bad thing that Oscar excludes certain features only premium features.

"Again. "You're too young to know what a community is." Knowing what a community is has nothing to do with being self-sufficient. He was accusing an age group of not knowing the meaning of community, which definitely has moral implications, just the same as "not knowing what responsibility is"."
Except that Mikey is correct when he said that. I'm 24, and I would also say that because, looking back on the past, teenagers are misinformed about community and economy.

"This is the second time you have falsely accused me of ad hominem arguments. I was using various (AKA 2) members of the site as examples of how this is not the greatest community on the internet. If I had been responding to CKWMWM by calling him a douchebag, that would have been an ad hominem fallacy. I'm starting to think your accusations of me being uninformed are slightly hypocritical."
You personally attacked site members, which by definition is ad hominem.

"Basically, I post where the whole community can see because if I lose face, I was probably asking for it, but I turn out to be in the right, and the staff do something stupid, they can't cover it up. A large number of members will see the stupid post, and the staff will look very silly. If I am banned justly, then banned members get a bad rep anyway, and I was probably asking for it. On the other hand, if I am banned unjustly, a shitstorm will likely emerge. If site staff attempt to cover up their error by deleting posts or the whole thread, they will look extremely stupid, and a revolt may occur."
If you were logically thinking, you would have realized that a PM would have been the better route because you knew that this thread would've received many rebuttals destroying your claims. When Mikey pointed out that you were just now complaining about the download limit after a year of its installation, I couldn't help but agree with him. Your original argument is logically indefensible, and you should have picked up on that if you were thinking rationally.

"Also, while my clamoring for civility may have been slightly hypocritical, I distinctly remember you "clamoring" for me to leave the site."
The problem with this is that I was neither unkind in asking you to leave nor hypocritical in doing so. It was the opening paragraph of my first rebuttal where I asked you to leave, and I listed the reasons why without resorting to personal attacks and irrelevant arguments.

I am locking this thread with this warning. Omnigeek6, this is you second and FINAL warning.

[Mikey]

Tetsu, I am vetoing the above motion on the basis that this topic is of importance to the community at large. This topic shall remain in fair play so long as this debate remains at some level of civility and does not wonder off from its intended discussion.

I think we're getting too specific here. We're just getting into the details (see above lol). All in all, I can suffer a 3-per-day download limit if it helps the site make money off of those who want it unlimited!

I had no idea there even was a limit. :S

I wanted to say I'm sorry for what I said yesterday. I noticed that some of what I said was mean. On this topic, I've never gone over 2 downloads a day, and I don't think I ever will. So the limit isn't a problem for me.

Originally posted by coasterpimp

For once, cool5 is right.

Naw, coasterpimp, he's always been right. That's the irony. He is our centuries undiscovered Comedic Genius.

And to topic...

I get paid Thursday, I'll go premium. And I'm 34 years old. [^] I'm not that active, but I prefer this site to the others for some reason. Didn't even notice the change in downloading.

Suicidal Tendencies said it best, "Seeennd me, yo money!"

Refer to my quote above or bugger off! Go felch with your Mum!

And I do want to visit my sister near SFMM, but I don't like going there when school is out for the summer. So I may hit up Oscar for a trip, buy his ticket maybe.

So in order to get Premium, I have to go through PayPal? I ain't gonna mail ya a money order, so...

Originally posted by vampire

I had no idea there even was a limit. :S

Probably because I don't think I've even seen you before.... [:D]

If anyone wants my two cents on this, I think the prime factor in this site's decline (at least the part that we can control... because part of it is just the fact that Nolimits hasn't been updated in so long,) has been the lack of competition. (And I can take my share of the blame, as a lot of these things were my responsibility.)

IMO, what really got people interested and kept them coming back to this site in the glory days was the great competition that we had week-to-week and in the contests. Back in the day, it really meant something to get a weekly award. We had a ton of regular raters and regular posters who kept great coasters coming in week after week, so it provided a lot of incentive for young designers, who are usually very competitive, to have their tracks rated and try to win one of these highly-sought after rewards. Plus if you go even further back, we had the official medal counts, which made getting those awards that much more meaningful. (I'll take the blame for screwing that up.)

Also, contests are a HUGE factor. Between the 2007 and 2008 NLT's, we alienated a hell of a lot of people. Plus our "contest winners" page hasn't been updated since before the 2006 NLT, nor has a single coaster received the once-coveted contest trophy since then. Again, it's a matter of incentive/reward. People want to build more coasters and contribute when they feel like their effort is worth something.

And just as an add-on, the sheer number of contests has plummeted. (Again, I'll take some of the blame there...) Here is how many contests we had each year, plus how many people showed up for the NLT, and it should be obvious that there is a bit of a problem recently, and people are leaving the site because there just isn't a lot going on anymore.

2003 - 10 contests (20 entrants / 12 tracks)
2004 - 6 contests (32 entrants / 17 tracks)
2005 - 6 contests (44 entrants / 32 tracks)
2006 - 3 contests (64 entrants / 34 tracks)
2007 - 5 contests (Site reached its peak here... 74 entrants / 49 tracks)
2008 - 3 contests (34 entrants / 27 tracks)
2009 - 2 contests (45 entrants / 30 tracks)
2010 - 4 contests (41 entrants / 24 tracks)
2011 - 1 contests (32? entrants / 19 tracks)

So IMO, the way to save the site is for people to spend a half-hour or so each week and start rating tracks on the exchange again to re-fire the weekly competitions (we haven't had a single medal awarded in how long now?) And for those who are capable of hosting contests (myself included) to step up and give people something to build towards. And Oscar, can you PLEASE get someone on updating the "contest winners" page and awarding the winning tracks the trophies they never received? (I'm even willing to do it if you'll let me know how...)

[jayman]

the tracks are boring compared to 5 years ago. even some of the ones that look interesting in the screenshots are just too "bland" with the exception of very few, and even then people cry when they dont get the rate they want. . there's like 1 track every couple of months that interests me. alot of whats gone wrong was when we got flooded with refugees from coastersims.

Originally posted by Omnigeek6


Gestlrcrazy:

Wow, flaming on the second post. You also seem to be implying that being allowed to swear (which you seem to be taking advantage of to flame people) is worth $30 per month.

Is it really $30 a month?...

You said you expected a shitstorm. And you're stupid, you deserved all of it. If you're surprised that I flamed you on my first post... well, just look through this thread at how illegitimate and disrespectful your opinion stand; all you will get is rejection.

Originally posted by Tetsu

the exit button is located at the upper right corner of your internet browser.

Don't rule out the pro-Safari population!

[jayman]

^hmm. i'm not super " hep to the internet jargon" but i wouldn't call that a " flame" but a well deserved curt response. omnigeek did one thing in his post. he announced that he's a cry baby that thinks he's entitled to something for free. reminds me of people who whine when they cant buy twinkies with food stamps