"If you believe that a forum ads increases this number, well you’re right. I mean, if you believe that someone who was going to join 1 game, actually joins 1+1 games after seeing a forum advertisement.
If you instead, as I do, believe that the number of “join this game” clicks remains 100/day regardless of game ads, but through game ads you’re just moving some users (users likely to be hand-guided by ads) from 1joining list unadvertised to another, and from 1take over unadvertised to another … your assumption is wrong.
“New” page. “Open” page. “search” page where you can set any kind of your own game options preference.
That’s all we need; anything else is ***at least*** redundant. And this single reason should be enough to get rid of forum ads."
So your argument against ads is that every single person who would have taken a CD position via advertisements would have also checked the Open tab and done so that way in absence of CDs, and therefore that advertisements are redundant?
If that is the case, then while we obviously cannot verify this without delving into personal anecdotes, I must say that your position here is factually incorrect. I know, because I personally have taken over a handful (3-4, I think) CD positions that were advertised in the forum *specifically because* they were advertised in the forum; I was *not* looking to join a CD position via the Open tab, and just happened upon the advertisement in the forum. And furthermore, I'm certain that if you polled others you would find similar results; perhaps not from y'all (as I can only assume you wouldn't make that argument when your own actions contradict it!), but from other site users, especially those active on the forum, who (at least per findings on webDiplomacy) tend to be more dedicated to their games than those who do not use the forum. By targeting forum users via ads, you are pulling from a pool which is more committed to the community (by way of engaging people personally) and thus has added pressure to finish the jobs for which they sign up. I wouldn't cite this fact as a particularly crucial point in favor of ads, but it is there.
"* Uhmm... yes and no. Mainly no. Because if there were no advertisements, the games would start anyway. People would just check the "New" page and choose the one they think it's the best for them. Am I missing anything? If no, the point of advertisements must be another. Any clue?"
The point is that the assumption you make regarding people just checking the New/Open tabs just doesn't hold, or at least those of us arguing for the legitimacy of ads say it doesn't. I just mentioned my own anecdote earlier in this post, and as I said there, I am certain I'm not alone. Sure, for those who are *seeking to join* a CD position, ads may be redundant - I'm iffy on that, but would not mind just assuming that for sake of discussion, noting that it's not necessarily the case. But again, I don't think they cause harm, the ads; and for those who are *not seeking to join* a CD position, it does matter. People can just stumble on an ad in the forum for a game they wouldn't otherwise have checked out, and decide to play it. That would undeniably be a good thing, but you would not have it happen without the ad. And yes, like I said, it happens; I've done it.
"Good point. In the whole thread I tried to explain that it hurts more than it helps (if it helps). The same did DL. If we didn't convice you, I'm afraid we'll never agree on this."
I mean... I'm just not seeing the clear-cut argument that proves it's harmful. I continue to see the claim, and some legitimate points about the situation at large, but nothing that decisively connects those points to the question of whether the ads are harmful.
"The point is that while an Ad helps one particular game increasing its chances to start, it damages another unadvertised one decreasing its chances. No? Isn't that what Ads are for: to get more visibility than other games? It's unfair! Why the site should advantage people who have time to sit glued at the computer, already playing 10 games, making ads, bumping them, over those who can't? If you think it's few people, please mind that who doesn't have the time to advertise the games he's in, probably doesn't even have the time to read this thread.
One starting game is not more important than another one!"
I don't think this point holds up. Firstly, like I said before, ads can pull in players who wouldn't have been looking to play otherwise. Thus, the chances of an unadvertised game being filled aren't decreased: the unadvertised game's pool of prospective players is limited only to those who check the Open tab, whereas the advertised game just pulled a player who would not and did not. It's like saying that the chance of Person X finding an apple on the ground decreased because Person Y found an orange on the ground. They're two different fruits, two different players, and the chance of finding one shouldn't affect another.
But more to the point of fairness - how is it unfair? Sure, ceteris paribus, no game is more "worthy" of having someone join compared to another. Our aim should be to fill as many games as possible, not to fill only some games. But the point is that the situation is not ceteris paribus: Person A spent the extra time to get his game advertised, and so has done more work to get his spot filled compared to Person B. Banning advertisements doesn't make it unfair, because it just keeps the playing field level, but it does deprive committed players an extra opportunity to get a CD position filled, and I don't see how that is a good.
Finally, regarding the slippery slope argument ("If we allow them to be advertised, the forum will be FLOODED!!") - that is clearly and demonstrably false. Look at the forum right now. This is what unfettered advertisement looks like. And the forum is by no means flooded. Furthermore, the advertisements probably will drop when implementing the other good ideas posted here. So even without banning the ads, you will see a reduction in advertising. So I don't see how this fear could possibly be actualized.
"If you think I want to deprive you of a natural right, well you may look at it as if was an anti-trust rule. To grant the fun (and the rights) of those who can't advertise the games they're in, you deprive someone of a right that he doesn't really need (because he got already enough fun) and that he's actually abusing it, depriving the others of an equal chance to get their games started.
See... you don't complain of anti-trust rules unless you're a truster [is this the correct word?]"
Actually, as an economics major, I happen to be an expert on the subject of antitrust laws (well, okay, not an expert - Internet joke). Antitrust laws don't exist out of "fairness" to the less-equipped businesses. Antitrust laws exist because monopolies are bad for everyone but the people running them - they distort free markets and drive costs up unnecessarily. They're unduly inefficient.
The analogy, then, does not hold. One, advertising is *more* efficient for getting CD positions filled than no-advertising, because advertising *does* pull in some people who wouldn't otherwise check the Open tab. Two, advertising does not create a monopoly on CD positions being filled by any means. As you and Decima Legio already argued correctly, for those people who check the Open tab, advertising has no effect. So all advertising creates a "monopoly" on are players who would only see advertisements anyway, and wouldn't check the Open tab. Advertising has a "monopoly" on players who can only be serviced via advertising. And that monopoly is not a bad thing, because the monopoly only exists because there is nothing else to service these players, not because the monopoly cut other forms of filling CD spots out of business.
Finally, the monopoly analogy doesn't hold because there is no monopoly on advertising. Anyone can do it, and the cost in terms of time, energy, etc. is negligible (less than a minute of time and a few clicks of the mouse and strokes on the keyboard). Nothing prevents a person from advertising, so it isn't equivalent to a monopoly.
"So:
- never indispensable"
I once again point out that being dispensable is not a bad thing. Furthermore, I have already addressed this point, and my rebuttals were not addressed in kind. In situations like that in the future, I will simply write "AATP," and if I find myself writing "AATP" repeatedly to the same point, I will simply assume there is no counter to my rebuttal and that the objection drops, at which point onward I will ignore the objection.
"- always damaging"
How? AATP.
"- for the (fair) purposes they are believed useful, there are alternative solutions more useful than them "
This is a restatement of "never indispensable," with the addition that ads are somehow less effective. I've pointed out throughout this post how they are *more* effective at getting players than their absence would be.
"- banning them would help solving several other important issues"
Like? AATP.