On 03.08.2016 12:48, Aaron Wolf wrote: > On 08/03/2016 01:27 AM, mray wrote: >> >> >> By definition the carry over is lower than the limit where fees make >> sense - I expect this to be low. >> For this low amount of money to trigger an unfortunate un-matching the >> total would have to be full to the brim already. This will hardly >> happen, and IF it happens it is only an indicator of a bad situation >> that will soon get an auto-un-match anyway. There is not much to gain. >> > > I was going to make this point myself. I agree, it just happens when > we're already approaching the limit, which is already an issue, this > just triggers it sooner. > >> This corner case of a corner case is *NOT* worth breaking the *ONE* >> limit the user trusts us with! >> > > I must say, I get *less* sympathetic with your views when they are > expressed hyperbolically. Charging 2 months at once instead of in two > separate charges does not break the limit or the trust. I actually > *agree* with you that the experience is cleaner if we make the limit > even harder and have less to explain. When you equate "we have to > explain combining two months into one charge" with "we broke the trust", > it actually makes me less respectful of your view because I disagree > with what you are saying. > > So, to be clear: when you give exaggerated or even bad justifications > for something that might be the correct approach, it makes me more > skeptical. So, please, try not to use this sort of hyperbole.
You're welcome to be skeptical about my opinions. Everything that may find flaws in reasoning about the mechanism is a good thing. Don't decide on that matter on sympathy please, though. But I honestly can't see an exaggeration in my statement. We only ask for 2 things: 1. what projects to match 2. ONE limit where to stop the monthly flow of money Given the simplicity of a mechanism like ours I think it is really a stretch to give room for interpretation about what "monthly limit" might mean. There is no doubt that with a fitting explanation we could make it mean anything and charge accordingly and "correctly"! But the most straight forward interpretation is: "Just don't spend more than that!" With our background of good intentions and devotion to simplicity and clarity I do regard it as a hard break to diverge from those qualities and see it as our duty to protect them – especially touching the core part that relates to trust between us and the user. Even if we "explain" and charge "correctly". > >> I would want to be able to make a promise to honor the limit *without >> any restraints*. We can do that. Not doing it makes us look desperate or >> needy. People setting a $10 limit should never find a $11 transaction >> fee in their payment processors accounting. No matter what wordplays we >> come up on our site to differentiate between "monthly pledge" or >> "monthly total". > > So, in the end, you are right that keeping the limit totally clear means > less confusion, less to explain (maybe), and I'm okay with going this > way. I think you're simply entirely wrong that it makes us look > desperate or needy. > >> >> If we let the user set a limit we need a darn good reason to ignore it >> *ever*. This is not a good reason. >> > > Well, again, I think it may just be simplest and best user experience to > not combine two month's charges into one if that results in a higher > than one-month-limit charge. But I don't doing so is *not* correct to > describe as ignoring their monthly budget limit, it's just that it's > more confusing to have to explain the slightly weaker form of limit, and > I agree that making it the very hardest and easiest-to-explain approach > is indeed best. > > So, here's my proposal: > > If there is a carry-over: *never* make the carry-over result in *either* > over-1-month-limit charge *and* never make the carry-over result in > suspension of pledges. Instead, just charge a *portion* of the > carry-over that the monthly limit will allow. > > Example: $2 carry-over and $1 fee and $7.50 of > current-month-pledge-values with a $10 limit: Charge precisely $10 > total. Now the remaining carry-over to be included with the following > month is $0.50. > > Basically: we will charge the *entire* limit (and no more), in order to > slowly widdle-down the carry-over. That's the right way to do the corner > case. Thus, carry-over will never be a factor for suspensions and we > never violate hardest limit version: absolute monthly-charge limit. > > I see zero downsides to this approach. > I agree. Let's just never go over the limit. I don't even have hard feelings about the other details.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
