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.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Discuss mailing list

Reply via email to