I belong to several Online Swap Meets that are Basic (Free) lists on groups.io They generate considerable message traffic and image storage and will be impacted by the Jan18th price increases. Some of

I respectfully but emphatically disagree. Incessant criticism without suggestion(s) for improvement is a waste of everyone’s time. I happen to believe this DISCUSSION, ongoing though it may be,

The logic supporting your absolute pronouncement here is not clear to me. Let me put this another way…a group owner has little, if any, control or input as to Groups.io rules or fees. He/she is a

Ultimately, while no one wants this, the point may be reached when FREE cannot be continued: the choice then becomes pay or lose... as I've mentioned before, in this situation, there is no good

I don't believe that's true. I think Mark would have some sort of setting at the group level to determine if a site membership would be required. A new group would have a limited number of free

Quite so! GROUPS are Grandfathered. Not members. Groups are members of IO. Memebers of a group are members oilf a group and not members of IO. SOME outfits for say, $500, give a member lifetime total

My Grandfathered FREE Basic Group would no longer be freely accessible, if there is ANY form of a user account fee suddenly being charged by Groups.io every year. My FREE Group would be placed behind

While I agree that many people who created groups at Groups.io had thought that things would always be the same for them and for everyone else that they recommended Groups.io to, and many such people

I keep getting drawn back in, so I’ll just say it one last time and then mute this topic so I’m not tempted: my feeling is that any structure wherein members pay instead of just owners violates

Yes, I understand that. Again, not what I’m talking about. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human

You mean, grandfathered forever and ever? If yes, Mark's message promises (to me at least) that, as has been customary so far, groups created before this necessary (Jan-2021) plan

My group deals with loads of databases, by this I mean I have to deal with loads of databases. I would LOVE to have the buttons at the top. Deleting a database is onerous, especially when I have

Haha! :-) -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only be human together. - Desmond Tutu

Nobody was promised that those things would be grandfathered, either. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can

That's right. It affects everybody, the whole works. Exactly. A big mess. Whereas simply changing the fee structure for owners is invisible to other users. It doesn't have to be Mark's original plan.

Not to argue, yes but then again, nobody who created a groups.io account thought that at some point in time in the future their new free groups would have no Files/Photo/etc capabilities

Disagree. If owner fees change, that is transparent to subscribers. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in yours, for we can only

>>> Making members pay is a dealbreaker for me. >>> It seems like a member-pay model affects every member, and therefore, affects all groups, even if indirectly. I think I now get what you mean, so if

I understand Mark’s proposal and what is grandfathered. That is still my interpretation. -- J Messages are the sole opinion of the author, especially the fishy ones. My humanity is bound up in

>>> My interpretation is that the grandfathering would immediately cease to be in effect because the new proposal affects all group members. Even if a group itself is grandfathered in, members may