The same thing happens in that instance. An email goes out to mods saying that there's an overdue invoice and you get two weeks to pay the invoice (minus any remaining sponsorship fees) otherwise the

They could. But if only Mark's original plan plus this sponsorship plan are implemented, you end up with exactly what I thought was optimal, and what I'd suggested (although not the specifics),

That may be, but my other proposal (about free-member slots) was meant to be separate from this suggestion and in fact both features can complement each other. This sponsorship button makes it easier

Yes, I can see that from my test $5.00 sponsorship I received a notification email but there is currently no option in the Moderator Notification panel to control these sponsorship notifications like

Now might be a good time to reflect on and confirm what happens if insufficient sponsorship funds are 'in the bank' and there is no credit card on file so a group gets

Scott, I'm not sure where you got that impression. Mark said: "Free/Basic groups can allow sponsorships." He does go on to say that:"Converting from Free/Basic to a Premium group still requires a

RE: Free/Basic groups can allow sponsorships. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it sound like Free/Basic groups are not able to Allow Sponsorships. But, rather Free/Basic groups must upgrade to a Premium

Fantastic idea. Not sure how I missed it. (Must have been hiding under my rock at the time, aka had the thread muted.:) It completely avoids all the objections I’ve expressed about member fees,

Shal, Can I trouble you to confirm whether (or not) you are still seeing this effect? I certainly am still seeing it. I wonder whether there is anyone (outside PST) who is seeing the correct times in

Hi All, I have just pushed a new group sponsorship feature, based on Shal's and Samuel's proposals. Here are the details: In Group Settings, there's a new Allow Sponsorships checkbox, with the help

Exactly right. Grandfathered groups are actually not even worthy of discussion in what happens going forward because they will start to be a smaller and smaller fraction of the total groups. And in

Yes, but the purpose of this thread is not to discuss what the potential downsides of grandfathering is. Your objection would apply even if my proposal isn't implemented. If a user applies for

Shal, if you exclude grandfathered groups then the new groups that had to and will continue to have to pay, will be at a disadvantage. So unless Mark is trying to constrain the formation of new groups

We are going even beyond speculation to even discuss but i would assume that included your future members as well. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My

Pete, I cited my reason for thinking so at the time: Mark's request that we keep the feedback coming. A week later and Mark created this topic. That confirms that he's listening and considering.

Scott, Because your group is grandfathered it has an unlimited number of "free slots". Meaning that no one joining it would face a paywall were the OP of this topic implemented. I don't think Mark

If only my current members are grandfathered, a $2.50 user paywall would stop any new members from joining my group. It would die. This is why any group member charge (vs system user paywall

It’s not clear that the idea is even under consideration by Mark. It’s just something that someone threw out there in this thread. But my assumption would be that whatever the new plan turns out

RE: "Second, you're already grandfathered in, as I understand it." Again, being "already grandfathered" would be inconsequential, if a $2.50 paywall was added in front of us.

I thought of that and immediately blew it off. This whole idea pits groups against each other. "This one is free," "that one charges," etc. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author,