Note: Before deciding to lock this thread in a fit of TL;DR, I'm not complaining about donors at all; without them, servers wouldn't be up, and everyone loses.
It's a bit frustrating spending four hours trying to get onto a server, and constantly being kicked so donors can play, and many here seem to dismiss it as "Pay 10 bucks and stop whining." Some people, however, got Minecraft itself as a gift, and would be out of their minds asking to spend ten bucks on a 1 month VIP membership to a game. It's a bit unfair that donors get to kick users, and even more frustrating when you /aren't/ the last member to play, but four or five donors bring the server to capacity and another donor kicks you by logging in after them.
Connecting earlier? Well, some people, myself included, have terrible internet; the city here own all of the telecommunications, and we actually CANNOT buy any other provider. Such abuse by the company is only legal through loopholes.
Now I'm not saying remove donor perks at all, but if donors can kick members, calling the server "Free" is a misnomer. It's still about who has enough money to play. Other hunger games servers have overflow hosting for donors which prevent members from being kicked by allowing donors to play beyond the server limit. Another possibility is donor servers. I'm certain that dividing the number of donors you have by 48 still allows enough money to be made to host donor servers and keep the games running. Perhaps donors could start with an article of leather armor? It doesn't break the game, as it allows no quick attacking to the corn, but it gives them a slightly better chance.
Kicking members on the basis of money is wrong simply because it might not be an issue of /not wanting/ to donate. I personally don't mind being kicked, but it drives others mad. The only reason I haven't gotten a $50 donation membership is because I'm disappointed in the way perks are handled on these servers, and those that donate aren't helping by being satisfied in their ability to kick others.
It's a bit frustrating spending four hours trying to get onto a server, and constantly being kicked so donors can play, and many here seem to dismiss it as "Pay 10 bucks and stop whining." Some people, however, got Minecraft itself as a gift, and would be out of their minds asking to spend ten bucks on a 1 month VIP membership to a game. It's a bit unfair that donors get to kick users, and even more frustrating when you /aren't/ the last member to play, but four or five donors bring the server to capacity and another donor kicks you by logging in after them.
Connecting earlier? Well, some people, myself included, have terrible internet; the city here own all of the telecommunications, and we actually CANNOT buy any other provider. Such abuse by the company is only legal through loopholes.
Now I'm not saying remove donor perks at all, but if donors can kick members, calling the server "Free" is a misnomer. It's still about who has enough money to play. Other hunger games servers have overflow hosting for donors which prevent members from being kicked by allowing donors to play beyond the server limit. Another possibility is donor servers. I'm certain that dividing the number of donors you have by 48 still allows enough money to be made to host donor servers and keep the games running. Perhaps donors could start with an article of leather armor? It doesn't break the game, as it allows no quick attacking to the corn, but it gives them a slightly better chance.
Kicking members on the basis of money is wrong simply because it might not be an issue of /not wanting/ to donate. I personally don't mind being kicked, but it drives others mad. The only reason I haven't gotten a $50 donation membership is because I'm disappointed in the way perks are handled on these servers, and those that donate aren't helping by being satisfied in their ability to kick others.
