On 08/03/2016 04:50 PM, Stephen Michel wrote: > Paraphrasing all my quotes because context is way too long already. > > mray said: >> Having a rollover cause unmatching is an extreme edge case > > If that's true, going over your limit from a rollover is an extreme edge > case, too. > > I think this is an edge case, but not an extreme one. If my limit is $3 > and the minimum is $2, and my current pledges total just over $1.50, I > will encounter the unmatching scenario every other month. That's > possible in any scenario where the limit is less than double the maximum. > > Aaron said: >> Right, and I agree that all other versions of the limit are problematic >> in requiring explanation such as "we may charge multiple months in one >> charge." > > Disagreed. There is nothing new or confusing about combining charges. Do > you pay for each item at a grocery store individually? No, they're > itemized on the same receipt. Let's present our history like a receipt, > where it just so happens that you can break each item down further. > Example: > > /--April 2016----------------------------------\ > | | > | Project Z with long name 987 $0.98 | > | | > \-------------------------------------$0.98----/ > > /--May 2016------------------------------------\ > | | > | Project Name X 6543 $6.54 | > | Project Y 842 $0.84 | > | Payment processing fee: Stripe $0.66 | > | | > \-------------------------------------$10.39---/ > > /--June 1, 2016--------------------------------\ > \---Credit card charge----------------$11.37---/ > > /--June 2016-----------------------------------\ > | | > | Project Z with long name 987 $1.08 | > | | > \-------------------------------------$1.08----/ > > <--Lorem Ipsum Charges pending*-------$1.08----> > > *Or, "outstanding balance" or something. > > A little prettiness added here would go a long way towards intuitive > understanding (eg, credit card charge is in gold while other numbers are > in black), but I think this is good enough to communicate the vision. > > mray said: >> >> If we let the user set a limit we need a darn good reason to ignore it >> *ever*. This is not a good reason. > > I've been under the impression we are going to present this as a monthly > limit on your **pledges** (for all intents and purposes, fees are a part > of the pledge). That's totally different than a limit on the amount we > will charge your credit card at one time. > > If we present the history as such (ie, like the example above), I think > it's abundantly clear that no month's charge has exceeded the limit and > thus we have broken no promise. > >> >> So, here's my proposal: -snip- >> >> >> I see zero downsides to this approach. > > I think the downside is, this is significantly harder/more complicated > to explain and to display a history of. > > "April's amount was under the minimum, so its charge has been spread out > between May, June, and July." Certainly do-able. Certainly much less > simple. >
I'd like to state my conclusion and move on: Stephen's argument which matches my initial view is so reasonable that it reinforces my impression that Robert's arguments are hyperbolic. Effectively, I see it as unreasonable after hearing the reasonable views from Stephen that the combining of months is as extremely bad as Robert's wording insists. It's as though Robert is refusing to at all acknowledge the reasonable perspective Stephen is presenting. I don't think Robert's approach to express his views helps his argument and is instead leading to this tangential continuation of the argument. Basically: it doesn't help the discourse to just insist on one dogmatic interpretation. But it happens that I think Robert's interpretation is the best one, just not dogmatically so. I want to propose my solution as the *final* one for MVP: The limit is accepted as a hard limit for any charge in any given month, because it makes things as easy and reliable as possible for the patrons. Whenever there needs to be a carry-over, we use the difference between a month's charges and any outstanding carry-over from previous to reach up to the max, and thus widdle-away the carry-over over multiple months if need be. A carry-over of $2 could take two or three months to widdle away if a patron is very close to their limit otherwise. That's not a problem. And the patron gets to just be certain no charge ever will surpass their monthly limit. Even though it is *okay* to combine months it *will* result in the need for care in the explanation and still have room for mistaken understanding. By spreading out the carry-over over as many months as necessary (which will usually just be one month), we remove the risk of confusion and lose nothing valuable. So, I want to accept this as the solution and design the mechanism and the transaction history around this approach. And we don't need to then debate the issue further. The only issue from the meta- topic about the discourse is: Robert, if you could practice taking the time to express your understanding of others' views (such as Stephen's in this case), it would help people see that you are indeed listening to and understanding their perspective. As I bothered quoting at https://wiki.snowdrift.coop/community/honor-users "First, you must attempt to re-express your opponent’s position so clearly, vividly, and fairly that your opponent says, ‘Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.’ Then, you should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement), and third, you should mention anything you have learned from your opponent. Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism."
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list Discuss@lists.snowdrift.coop https://lists.snowdrift.coop/mailman/listinfo/discuss
