Fencer: LOL. Nobody says it's fair. I'm saying the opposite - that it's not fair.

Okay, so you put it in place three years ago when you were first considering the idea. The length of time doesn't mean that you got it right and it doesn't mean that it has to stay that way either.

So I am saying that it should be fair. If you don't like the word 'fair' then how about 'reasonable'. Is it reasonable that a Knight should be unable to play in tournaments because they are stuck in one that is edging along at the speed of treacle on a cold day?

Saying that "if someone doesn't like it they don't have to use it" comes across as disrespectful. If I were a pain in the bum to you and other Knights too, and you wanted to get rid of us, then that's a useful comment as it's likely to make people see you as thoughtless or uncaring and they'd be more likely to leave. But I don't believe it's your intention to discourage people. So to express it as a response to a legitimate issue is disappointing. I'd rather you thought about the issue than posted an immediate gut response.

The fact is that I do have to use the system that you created. Or leave the site. Again, surely that's not what you're suggesting!??

Why did you create the Knight level? Presumably because you recognise that some people are on low incomes, some people are unwilling to commit much money to something until they are sure of it, and yet others recognise that they'll only make limited use of what's on offer and needn't pay for unlimited use. Plenty of reasons, and it's great that there's a more affordable way to be active than having to be a Rook.

Yet I say again - why does the Knight have to be only so little above the Pawn and so crippled compared to the Rook. Pawns may come and go, they may convert to paying members. A Knight, however, is already a paying member and keeping them paying is a good thing. You may see it that a Knight with crippled facilities is more likely to pay for Rookhood on their next update, and that will be true for some. But there are also those who cannot afford that difference - small as it may seem to many people. I believe that if a person can only afford to be a Knight then they're likely to stay as a Knight, yet continue to feel dissatisfied at the perceived value for money.

Finaly, you mentioned to Walter about having limited time to respond. Remember Filip. Today's customers are tomorrow's customers - if you treat them properly. So can I suggest, then, that you make a reply like "You've made some good points and I intend to get back to you as soon as possible" (and mean it) - rather than appearing to throw cold water in people's faces and walking away!

[Search key added: #Membership Levels#]