I am so with you also about the 'grandfather clause'. Those of us that have been pretty much here since the beginning of NING should be able to keep our sites, afterall would NING really be here if it were not for the millions of free networks - have they really thought about it long and hard....
That's exactly the reason why the free networks are being discontinued. It's not the only factor (the previous CEO Gina Bianchini wasn't exactly known for her sane decisions), but the free networks certainly seem to be the main cause why today Ning is bleeding money from all pores and orifices.
What surprises me most is not Ning's decision (we could see something of the kind coming), but the reactions of network creators who, while signing up with Ning, confirmed and agreed to Ning's right at any time (and from time to time) to modify, suspend, or discontinue providing the Ning Platform or any part thereof with or without notice... and now have conveniently "forgotten" all about it.
Well it's it's a question of ethics really. Who cares about that part of the long terms of service which lets be honest most people never read. There are millions of people who have put so much work into their free networks and now it's all being thrown away.
Tell me how is that ethical
Yes, it's a question of ethics indeed. The ethics of actually reading a contract before entering into it. The ethics of not whining later on that it's "normal" not to read it. The ethics of admitting your own neglicence instead of indignantly hollering "who cares".
"(...) There are millions of people who have put so much work into their free networks and now it's all being thrown away. Tell me how that is ethical (...)"
It is, and it isn't. It isn't, because Network creators can be said to have some kind of responsibility towards their members: they should have taken care (or right now take care) that their community is more or less safeguarded against situations like the present. But on the other hand it is, because the members can be said to have their own responsibility towards their network and its creator. If this creator is financially unable to keep the network up, and the members don't chip in and collectively produce the few dollars a month that are needed, I think it's perfectly ethical for that network creator to say: "Thank you for nothing, and stuff you all".
It's a matter of ethics indeed, and I consider the overwhelming "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme!" mentality that seems to prevail on this forum very unethical.
It's very entertaining to read your answers. You should be a lawyer. You are wasting your time explaining, dissecting and analyzing. We, (I) personally don't care. We can continue debating this situation for eternity. There are 360^ possible answers to everything.
Maybe you can call Dr. Phil for human relationship advice. I think Dr. Phil would tell you to "Shut up, listen and observe".
You sounds like a scholar but not a gentleman. Please stop your shenanigan and allows them to voice their opinions.
You can take it as basic wife101 - your wife doesn't want your answers. She only want you to listen.
Naaah... lawyers tend to be a pretty boring crowd.
"(...) We, (I) personally don't care (...)"
That's the point, matey, that's the whole point. None of the weeping crowd does even remotely care that they entered into a perfectly decent contract of their own free will. It really isn't cricket to give somebody a right, and when they are about to exercise it cry "Foul!" and tell them that you didn't give it or that you want it back.
"(...) Please stop your shenanigan and allows them to voice their opinions (...)"
Seems you're missing a few details. Firstly, I can't allow or disallow anything here. Secondly, I am distinctly in the minority... sort of "single me" against a whole "lot of you". It's hard to imagine that this overwhelming majority must be defended against my "shenanigans" or that I could in any way prevent them to voice their opinions. Don't be daft.
At least ninety percent of all posters here are on the side of the whiners. There are lots of people listening to them and sympathizing with them, there are more shoulders for them to cry on than they can ever use.
But... did anybody mention the word "responsibility"?
Jaap are you happy. There are people in distress here, what ever the reason Ning had on making its decisions or the small print on agreement stated. The point is very clear the advertising and the statements made by the executive was damn misleading.
I really don't care about that what I do care about is your attitude of being happy to cause an argument my question to you is are you getting a kick out of this or do you work for ning and this is your sock puppet.
Calling people whiners seemingly is a way to make distressed people mad you are using troll methodology. Please behave your self and if you are offering advice please do it professionally. Also if your on the side of ning please offer less of offensive answers show you really have brains.
I am mentioning responsibility and that of not abusing the freedom of speech and having the decency of using good manners. If you are a sock puppet please have the common decency to say you work for ning.
People in distress? Distress? DIS-BLOODY-STRESS? About some obscure little corner of cyberspace that may or may not disappear? About just a small tiny little handful of dollars that they can't cough up, even if they have (like some claim) 1500 or even 2000 members? With the odd exception that confirms the rule, most of the feeling-sorry-for-themselvers here would better spend their energy fundraising instead of hollering "Gimme! Gimme! Gimme! Oh, it's so unfair! Gimme!" all over the place.