Further to this, on the point of items:

The visual quality of items can vary wildly from site to site, depending on the illustrators. I'm not going to mention specific sites, just that there are places I would definitely NOT be paying for them - especially if they do not have a function.

There are plenty of us willing to have that conversation, and some have already shared some good ideas here. I think there are definitely better ways to go about having paid features than the current packages as they stand.

• Go back to one single payment; or, if there are multiple options, scale them to the length of subscription rather than dividing up the content.
• Consider what incentivises users. For me, I would be thinking about adding longevity to some of the existing features. How can this feature help a user's account grow over time? Is there a long term benefit to be gained from continuing to do X on the site? As an example - the potion making feature could be linked to the potions class. More exams passed = more potions available. More potions made = increased skill = better potions. Now let's say that in year 7 you had the option to make a health potion to counteract fainting...Suddenly I'm interested in buying a potion note bundle to speed up the process of getting the recipe.

I agree, and have a couple of additional points:

• Certain elements included in the VIP packages pose an accessibility issue. Both dark mode and the ability to disable site themes should not be locked behind a paywall, because users with visual impairments may end up excluded as a result. They may need to view the site in dark mode, high contrast mode, or without the extra frills, in order just to be able to navigate it, and should not have to pay for having a disability.
• The total cost of all the packages amounts to higher than a subscription to Netflix or Amazon. In exchange, the features offered are far less than what you would get for either Netflix or Amazon. So I struggle to see how such a high cost is justified by the quality of the extra content.

Although I can see why this might be suggested, it is an idea that I do not fundamentally agree with. A couple of the reasons have been mentioned already - some users might come back, and so on. But here's some additional food for thought.

• By deleting someone's account, you are directly affecting their own personal data, which is something that individuals should have control over. I know people have mentioned adding a clause to terms and conditions, but considering that there are times when people might not have control over being able to get back online (personal circumstances) this would not always be a fair move.
• Even though yes, there are a bunch of inactive accounts just sitting there, they are not harming anyone, they just exist, so I'm confused as to why they annoy people. I am not versed in server capacity, but given there are plenty of sites out there on the internet that don't delete people's accounts, I'm guessing there are probably things you can do to mitigate the issue. (Is it an issue? Are the servers being affected currently? I have no idea what it takes for these things to become a problem.)

I can see how this could potentially be annoying!

Thanks for your response! Yes, thankfully I haven't seen it flood the site chats too much either, which is positive.

I can see the reasoning behind the 100 forum post being to reduce spam; my main query on this is that it creates inconsistency across users, thereby making the feature a lot less functional. The need to reduce/prevent spam may also be a good reason to modify the feature so that it's changed through settings instead. (This helps especially if you do get users who come and go a lot.) Or alternatively, create a way for an account to automatically switch to idol if you don't interact for a certain length of time.

To add to my original post, here is a way in which it might be done:

• All feedback is centralised to this feedback forum. When creating a feedback post, there is a dropdown list saying "This feedback is for..." with options to choose "General WoX / WoL / WoP / (insert whichever site here)."
• Site specific feedback topics are accessible by the the leaders of the relevant site (the big green & blue), and they are able to respond to the feedback, mark it as complete/declined/under review and so on. They are also responsible for implementing changes to their site.
• This means that users no longer have to differentiate when to post in the feedback forum, and when to contact the MoM of a specific site.
• General site feedback (pertaining to changes affecting all sites) is dealt with as usual by the higher ups.

Thanks for the info - I think I remember there being a word limit but didn't realise it was that long already so good to know.

I think I just question whether adding such a test is only going to create yet one more barrier for people who would really just like to get on with things and enjoy the site. There are lots of people who grade well right from the start. Another possible issue is the fact of there being enough graders per each piece of homework. With a barrier in place, there is no doubt that some may get put off or never get as far as actual grading; in which case there may be fewer graders overall, meaning grades are slower to get back to the users. Which possibly means more AT work. I guess the question would then be, is there enough improvement in the quality of grading to justify that being the case?

It’s an interesting idea but comes with faults. There are certain things that can be very subjective. Eg I’ve had assignments in the past where it was very hard to tell from the answers if a requirement was met or not, and had to make a judgement. Likewise, when using information from outside sources, people’s opinion may differ on how much info used counts as plagiarism. These things could be very hard to judge and scoring people on them seems unfair. Furthermore, if someone took such a quiz and failed, would this mean they are locked out of grading forever? What if they wanted to improve and try again?

I agree people shouldn’t take the mick with grading but feel that this could end up excluding competent users.

If people really want to prevent one-liners, maybe try one if these instead:

1) Create a minimum character limit on the grading box that prevents submission if the comment is too short.

2) Make it a hard rule that all comments are to be a certain length and that a user has the right to complain if this is not the case. Also punish graders who are culprits of this.

I disagree with this for one reason: Keeping a pet involves feeding them, which can be very costly for a user. To involuntarily receive a pet as a gift might be detrimental to users who don't have a lot of money to begin with. This forces on them the choice of either ruining their bank account by keeping the pet, or making the emotional decision to release them. Pets should be able to be acquired by the user only, as a decision they have made themselves, and not from being gifted by others.